Non-citizen households use welfare at higher rates than U.S.-born, study finds

Households headed by non-citizens use means-tested welfare programs at substantially higher rates than households headed by U.S.-born Americans in nearly every state, according to a new analysis published Thursday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Researchers Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler drew on a combined five-year sample of Census Bureau data — the 2021 to 2025 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement — and found that 47% of non-citizen-headed households used at least one traditional welfare program, compared with 28% of households headed by U.S.-born Americans, a gap of 19 percentage points. The study measures welfare use at the household level, counting a household as a recipient if any member — including U.S.-born children — receives benefits.

Traditional welfare programs in the analysis include food stamps, Medicaid, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, free or reduced-price school meals, and subsidized housing.

“We find that non-citizen households use one or more means-tested programs at substantially higher rates than the U.S.-born in virtually every state,” Mr. Camarota and Ms. Zeigler wrote.

The disparity was most pronounced in states with large non-citizen populations. According to figures cited in reports on the study, non-citizen household welfare use reached 61% in New York versus 33% for U.S.-born households, 55% in Massachusetts, 54 percent in California, 53% in Arizona and 50% in Maryland, though those state-level figures could not be independently verified from the report’s published text and appear in supplemental data tables.

The higher usage rate persisted even though federal law restricts access to most federally funded means-tested programs for many non-citizens, including most new legal immigrants and those in the country illegally. Eligibility, however, varies considerably depending on immigration status, years of U.S. residence, the specific program and whether benefits are claimed on behalf of eligible children. The authors noted that restrictions have had limited impact in part because non-citizen parents can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children — a key driver of the overall gap. Nearly 38% of non-citizen households contain at least one U.S.-born minor child, the report noted.

Higher welfare use among non-citizen households was not tied to lower workforce participation, the study found. In fact, 87.5% of non-citizen households included at least one worker, compared with 70% of U.S.-born households. The authors said income levels and family size, not employment status, drive welfare eligibility, noting that many non-citizens have lower levels of formal education and correspondingly lower wages.

The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as a non-partisan research organization but advocates for lower levels of immigration. Its findings on immigrant welfare use have been disputed by other immigration researchers, including at the Cato Institute, who argue that methodology — in particular the household-level measurement that counts benefits received by citizen children — significantly affects the conclusions.

Advertisement Advertisement

This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times' AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times' original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.