An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that households led by non-citizens frequently access means-tested welfare programs at rates significantly higher than those led by U.S.-born citizens. Utilizing a five-year dataset from the 2021 to 2025 Current Population Survey, the study reveals that 47% of non-citizen-headed households utilized at least one traditional welfare program, compared to 28% of U.S.-born households—a disparity of 19 percentage points.
The traditional welfare programs included in the analysis comprise food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and various other aid programs. The highest rates of welfare use among non-citizen households were observed in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York, where the usage rate reached 61% against 33% for U.S.-born households.
Despite federal restrictions on access to many means-tested programs for non-citizens, the study found that nearly 38% of non-citizen households include at least one U.S.-born child, which allows these families to receive benefits on behalf of their children. Interestingly, the study also highlights that high rates of welfare use among non-citizen households do not correlate with lower workforce participation. About 87.5% of non-citizen households had at least one worker, compared to 70% of U.S.-born households, suggesting that factors like income and family size, rather than employment status, largely determine welfare eligibility.
While the Center for Immigration Studies claims to be non-partisan, its findings have faced skepticism from other research organizations, such as the Cato Institute, which argue that the methodology used—particularly the household-level measurement—affects the conclusions drawn.
Key Points:
- Why this story matters: The findings shed light on welfare usage patterns among immigrant populations, impacting policy and public perception regarding immigration and social support systems.
- Key takeaway: Non-citizen households utilize welfare programs at significantly higher rates than their U.S.-born counterparts, primarily due to eligibility related to U.S.-born children.
- Opposing viewpoint: Critics argue that the study’s methodology, including the inclusion of benefits accessed by citizen children, skews the conclusions regarding non-citizen welfare use.
