Asylum Applicants in California
Estimated numbers and economic contributions of asylum applicant workers in California.
Worker counts reflect the asylum applicant population as of 2025.
Workers by Industry
Breakdown of asylum applicant workers in California across major economic sectors.
Economic Impact
Asylum applicants in California collectively add $12.2 billion in income to the local economy each year. They contribute $2.6 billion in federal and payroll taxes and an additional $1.7 billion in state and local taxes — supporting public services, infrastructure, and community programs.
TPS Holders in California
Estimated numbers and economic contributions of workers with Temporary Protected Status in California.
Worker counts reflect the TPS population as of 2025.
Workers by Industry
Breakdown of TPS workers in California across major economic sectors.
Workers by Country of Origin
Breakdown of TPS workers in California from the leading TPS origin countries.
Figures cover the four leading TPS origin countries nationally. Workers from other designated countries make up the remainder of the TPS workforce here.
Economic Impact
TPS holders in California collectively add $1.9 billion in income to the local economy each year. They contribute $308 million in federal and payroll taxes and an additional $265 million in state and local taxes — supporting public services, infrastructure, and community programs.
Salvadoran TPS holders account for $1.1 billion and Ukrainian TPS holders account for $260 million of that annual income.
Methodology and Reports
Population and economic estimates were prepared by Dr. Phillip Connor, Research Fellow at Princeton University's Center for Migration and Development. Estimates use accepted demographic and economic methods used for other immigrant populations, drawing on data from the 2024 American Community Survey (ACS), January 2026 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office, United States Citizenship & Immigration Services, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, among other sources.
The two groups were estimated in separate studies. Figures for each program are reported on their own terms and are not designed to be combined into a single total.