In their latest report, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler explain that while immigration significantly increases the overall size of the nation's population, its impact on slowing the aging of American society is very limited. Immigrant fertility has declined significantly since 2008 and the presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand. If present trends continue, the total fertility rate (TFR) of immigrants may drop below 2.1 in the next few years, the level necessary to replace the existing population. An immigrant TFR of less than 2.1 would mean that, in the long run, immigration would add to the aging of American society.
U.S. Resettled More Refugees than Any Other Nation in 2017 and 2018 By Nayla Rush
Newly released UN data show that the United States remained the top country for refugee resettlement in 2018. What's more, the vast majority of refugees whom the UN referred to third countries for resettlement are neither the most vulnerable nor in urgent need of relocation.
said the operation appeared designed to allay skepticism among Mexico's
political leaders about the U.S. government's commitment to Mexico's crackdown
on cartels. The drug-related violence has taken about 15,000 lives since
President Felipe Calderón entered office in 2006. Mexican authorities have
arrested 80,000 drug suspects, and Washington has responded with $1.4 billion
in aid under the Merida initiative, but some in Mexico have grown frustrated with
the U.S. market's continuing demand for illegal drugs. “
Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state
illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half
times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are
going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our
Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist
Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana,
crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation
would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and
$46 billion annually over a five year period.'
A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for millions of illegal
aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall funding
would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the administration,
depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the 2020 election.
Breitbart News has extensively chronicled, Attorney
General Jeff Sessions ended the DACA program last year, although it’s
official termination has been held up in court by left-wing judges.
then, a coalition of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram
an amnesty for up to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens
through Congress, an initiative supported by the donor class.
Such a plan, most recently, has been
touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump receives anywhere
between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall in
exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
amnesty would render the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger
increased illegal immigration at the border — which is already set to hit
the highest annual level in a
decade next year — but increased legal immigration to the country.
year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even
discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the
southern border, as migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the
country to later cash in on the amnesty.
Secretary of State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a
DACA amnesty would trigger an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens
arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by
Executive Order, the temporary amnesty caused a surge at the southern border,
as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
terms of legal immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of
foreign relatives to the DACA illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for
green cards through the process known as “chain migration.”
According to Princeton
University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the average number of
family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized Mexican immigrants
stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5 million amnestied illegal
aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that would constitute a total
chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals entering the U.S.
If the number of amnestied illegal
aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration deal were to rise
to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act amnesty, and if
each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain migration flow
could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals coming to the
this rate of chain migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal
immigrants arriving to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied
population would potentially outpace the population of New
York City, New York — where more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of Trump’s proposed
border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually incentivize
lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S. imports 1.5
million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s working and
middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact, increasing illegal
and legal immigration levels.
president has also touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms
of cost. A border wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure
compared to the $116 billion that
illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled with a
border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out the
cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than
the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to
fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And
because amnesties for illegal aliens tend to be larger than initially
predicted, the total cost would likely be even higher for taxpayers.
about one in five DACA
illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at
least one in seven would
go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA illegal aliens
who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be much larger than
what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that
the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more Medicaid
money than the average American household. The research also noted that 56
percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one person on
study, reported by Breitbart News, indicates
that the CBO estimate of DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after
an amnesty is the lowest total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the
Meanwhile, a DACA amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down
for the country’s working and middle class, delivering benefits to the business
lobby while squashing the intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of
the 2020 presidential election. The plan is also likely to hit the
black American community the hardest, as
they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs against a growing illegal and
legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would be
willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure funding for his
proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would be willing to swap an
amnesty in exchange for funding border “security measures.”
Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on
track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential
600,000 border crossers expected.
“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country
permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world
leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes
migration a human right.” VIRGINIA HALE
Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households By Paul Bedard Washington Examiner, December 3, 2018
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is
justified, as households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare at
high rates. Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term
temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not
naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not
prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving
benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based
immigration think tank.
The numbers are huge. The report said that there
are 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare. . . . Their key findings in the analysis:
* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a
non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to
35 percent of native-headed households.
The usually discussed techniques
for lowering the size of the illegal alien population are two in number:
Reducing the inflow of illegals, such
as by building a wall; and
Mandating the departure of others
There is a third variable, rarely discussed,
that reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that
Democrats and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary
departure of some of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born.
It probably would require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively
encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely
to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of
federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact
that most of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me
of a conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident
of the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that
island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW)
program, which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born
persons, many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the
economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial
face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of
these migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less
expensive) income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making
RTW attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly
estimated 2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social
Security beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home
countries. It is drawn from government data easily available on the internet,
such as the Medicare budget (which was $720 billion in 2017) and on
similar sources for the numbers of beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many
Social Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw
their checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be
able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps,
and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United
Given the information above, one
might assume that virtually no one would want to take their Social Security
benefits abroad. That is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security
checks are mailed overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of
retirees who do this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various
issues of the of the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the
percentages of all beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage
was about 0.75 percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement
that is, slowly, growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately
increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally,
suggests strongly that most of these checks are notgoing
to wealthy people who have decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca
Raton. Average annual payouts of Social Security benefits were $15,208
nationally in 2017, and only $8,178 for those getting their checks abroad.
Thus, the overseas checks were only 54 percent of the national average,
reflecting the substantially lower lifetime incomes of those who retired
abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I
learned some years ago, in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90
percent of those getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
The U.S. should create a new
program (RTW) to encourage these movements back to the home countries,
providing a range of new benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them
in such a way that the returnees will tend to stay returned once they have
If the United States can save
$17,000 a year on each of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will
stop making the impact that the rest of us do on the environment, this country
will be making major progress, without using any coercion at all. And the
savings of some $17,000 a year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate
to offer some really enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the
Who Would Qualify? Since a major part of the
motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such persons would not be
disqualified. I would limit it to foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will
soon, for Social Security retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to
citizen. It would only apply to people wanting to return to their native lands,
and might not apply to a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles
of the U.S. borders. (These people would be tempted to live secretly in the
United States while collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary
could qualify, at any age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age
The Reward Package. This has to be enticing
enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek it, despite the basic
math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even without knowing the
details.) Such a package might include:
Retirement benefits at the age of 61,
instead of the usual 62;
A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security
benefit while the beneficiary is abroad;
Free one-way plane tickets for the
principal and the dependents; and
Checks totaling $5,000, half on
arrival in the home country, and the other half a year later, but only
paid in person, at a U.S. consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are
going to be giving some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the
rest of their lives! Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on
current Social Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get
an additional $818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare
savings of $10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit
increase at 25 percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to
be cashed in the home country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60
days of their issuance. Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the
beneficiary along with a thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of
the check indicating the name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the
date thereof. Banks that showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from
depositing these checks in the future.
All receiving any part of the
bonus package would have to agree in writing to not seek to return to the
United States under any circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or
their checks were cashed in the United States), the government would halve the
future benefit checks until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to
the United States twice within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer
be eligible for SSA retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in
which case a milder penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits
would be eligible to apply for naturalization, or any other immigration
The benefit package suggested
above is not set in stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the
foreign-born a substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds
to compensate the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made
available to those in deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible,
thus reducing the backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the
rewards described above could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily
returning the extra moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to
only those who had been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the
government of RTW would be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the
poor; on public housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the
elderly; and on non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be
the less obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the
In the specific instance of
shutting down Temporary Protected Status for people from some nations, it would
ease the departure of the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a
year or two of the RTW minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the
principal advantage to them would be the lower costs of living in the
homelands, as opposed to those costs in the United States. There would also be
the previously cited warmer weather (for most), the ease of returning to a
situation where everyone uses one's native language, and for many, losing the
fear of deportation. In short, a win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view
of the question of migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and
would impose some short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in
exchange for steady savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to
attempted abuse, but in the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year
times hundreds of thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in
contrast to the wall and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to
fewer illegal aliens in the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the
Center for Immigration Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy
More than 7-in-10
households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on
taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)
finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants
use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the
number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of
households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest
foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of
welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of
households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only
about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority
of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall,
about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of
native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is
looking to soon implement a policy that protects
American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass
importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public
charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a
permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the
past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a
boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the
welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5
million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than
1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent
more food stamps than the average native-born American
household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash
welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid
dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population
translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a
reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
NON-CITIZEN HOUSEHOLDS ALMOSTTWICE AS LIKELY TO BE ON WELFARE
truths are just basic and obvious. Yet the media insists on shoveling out
nonsense about how Elon Musk and Sergey Brin are representative of the average
immigrant. They're not. They used to be more representative before Ted Kennedy
decided to replicate the ideal political ecosystem of the Democrats across the
country. And so now here we are.
immigration is tough to manage. Unskilled migration is everywhere. With the
inevitable results shown
in his CIS study.
In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen
reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and
30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income
tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but
unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much
higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and
Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households
receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC
is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower
than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
migration, of the kind that the Left champions, is dangerous and destructive.
It's also hideously expensive. As unskilled migration continues, American
competitiveness declines to match those countries where the migrants originate
losing our work ethic, our skill sets and our reputation for innovation.
meanwhile we sink ever deeper into a welfare state of the kind that the
Democrats can always run and win on.
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen
households in the United States receive some form of welfare, according to a
report released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2,
found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the United States tap at least
one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of native households. The
findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014 Survey of Income and
Non-citizen households are using
welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of native households, the
study found. There are a total of 4.68 million non-citizen households
receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t improve over time. For
non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10 years, the percentage
of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are
defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as guest workers and foreign
students, permanent residents who haven’t yet naturalized (so-called green card
holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census
Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports
President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose
tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially
barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after a period of time in the
United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most legal immigrants have
lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare programs. Some states
provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens
use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens (including illegal
immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are
awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs
were examined in the report, no single program accounts for the discrepancy in
the use of welfare programs between citizens and non-citizens. For example, the
CIS said when “not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61
percent for non-citizen households, compared with 33 percent for natives. Not
counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared with 30
percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a
lack of education is the primary cause of immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of
non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS says, and therefore “they
often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS
said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are headed by immigrants with no
more than a high school education, compared with 36 percent of native households.
Of these non-citizen households with no more than a high school education, 81
percent access one or more welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of
non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In an effort to reduce the rate
of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump administration has issued new
“public charge” laws. These laws expand the list of programs that are
considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may prevent prospective
immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these changes “do not include
all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many
welfare programs are not included in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using
education levels and potential future income to determine the likelihood of
future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to reduce welfare use
certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State
Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to
serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers
unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending
$250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to
their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will
have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,”
Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000
uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been
sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than
100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an
estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California
illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their
pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who
cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget
proposal in January.
Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to
mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting
lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he
takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin
Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting
illegal immigrant support.
Majority of Non-Citizen
Households in US Access Welfare Programs, Report Finds
Almost 2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive
some form of welfare, according to a report released by the Center for
Immigration Studies (CIS).
The report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households
in the United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent
of native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014
Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at
twice the rate of native households, the study found. There are a total of
4.68 million non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the
numbers don’t improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for
more than 10 years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors,
such as guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet
naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the
country illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that
immigrants—both legal and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare
programs; after a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify.
Today, most legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for
many welfare programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants
independent of the federal government.
The biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their
“Non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on
behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full
welfare eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although a number of programs were examined in the report, no single
program accounts for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between
citizens and non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school
lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households,
compared with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55
percent for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of
immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of
education,” CIS says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for
welfare at higher rates.”
To support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen
households are headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education,
compared with 36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households
with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more
welfare programs, versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a
In an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants,
the Trump administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand
the list of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these
benefits may prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card.
However, these changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens
receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included
in the new rules,” according to CIS.
The CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to
determine the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card
applicants, to reduce welfare use among non-citizens.