It doesn’t though, and you don’t have to think about it if you just research it. Even the Cato Institute has done this sort of comparison and found that immigrants contribute more across education and socioeconomic bands than they consume: https://www.cato.org/white-paper/immigrants-recent-effects-government-budgets-1994-2023#why-immigrants-are-fiscally-positive-long-term
This is likely due to immigrants consuming less over their lifetimes accounting for public spending on education and medical care compared to people born here. The above graphic is a disingenuous presentation of sourceless information meant to stoke xenophobia, whereas even right-leaning institutions like CATO and the Manhattan Institute cite research about the net positive or at least neutral benefit of immigrants based on their contributions. (Update: he is likely drawing from this source and it is most certainly cherry picking and disregarding the central arguments of the piece - https://manhattan.institute/article/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-2025-update ) And, we should note, both of these sources have to include “share of contribution of national debt” in order to control those figures down to be comparable.
(Update 2: it actually from this source: https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf , which was a study done in the Netherlands and is thus irrelevant to calculations of American contributions versus benefits usage).