Much of the opposition to immigration in the US is based on a perception that immigrants and immigrant families receive more federal & state welfare benefits.
This perception is then used to support anti-immigration policies , and most especially those policies related to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants as well as policies that don’t use immigrant selection criteria to prevent poor and poorly educated persons from qualifying for resident visa’s..
Federal welfare is variously defined however.
In reality it includes SS benefits, and Medicare which apply to the elderly and retired persons who are citizens. It also includes child care tax credits.
An even more broadly defined welfare benefit are federal gov’t tax breaks which apply almost exclusively to the higher incomes and one of the largest is the mortgage interest tax deduction For example,,
Of the mortgage interest tax deduction welfare benefits paid
-32% go to the lower 20% of family incomes,
– 58% go tto middle 60% of incomes, and
– 10% go to the top 20% of incomes.
And yes, nearly nobody considers the mortgage interest tax deduction to be a federal welfare benefit, but its simply another form of federal subsidies paid by the general taxpayers who fully own their homes or who rent.. If the mortgage interest deduction tax credit isn’t welfare than nether is the low income tax credit or SS or Medicare for that matter, but they are all welfare benefits.
Of all federal entitlements (welfare benefits specified by long standing law — actually only since 1935),
– 53% go to those 65 and over
– 20% go to the non-elderly disabled
– 18% go to a working household (non-elderly, non-disabled)
– 9% go to non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that for health care & unemployment insurance).
:As for means tested welfare benefits, in 2011 27% of US households received that form of welfare (the following includes overlaps).
– 19.5% for Medicaid
– 12.5% food stamps
– 11.2% subsidize lunches
– 5% Public Housing
– 4% Unemployment
– 2.7% Veterans compensation
Only 7% of households receive a direct cash benefit (such as TANF).
Obviously these means tested welfare benefits go to the poorest segment of our society with most to families below the poverty level..
So “welfare” benefits is variously defined depending on the particular ideologies of those selecting which benefits are “welfare” and which are not.
The question of whether immigrants and non-citizens receive more welfare benefits than native born citizens has to predicated by what “welfare” benefits are included or excluded as well as by whether a child born in the US (who is thus a citizen) to non-citizen immigrant parents, and then whether both parents or only one parent is a citizen are part of the problem of defining welfare benefits to citizens and non-citizens.
This article by CATO institute in 2013 provides a comprehensive analysis — as opposed analysis by the Center for Immigration (CIS)studies which is a immigration opposition group that uses biased statistics to further their interests in limiting immigration… which is the primary source used by opponents of immigration policies.
The CATO article also describes why CIS studies differ so markedly from the CATO and other independent unbiased studies — basically CIS define groups such that the statics are reversed which serves their own interests in limiting immigration.. in other words CIS uses information pre-selected to advance their agenda.
“Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the average value of public benefits received per person is generally lower for non-citizens than for natives.
Because of the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost of public benefits to non citizens is substantially less than the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.”
Stated a bit differently, on an Apples to Apples comparison, non-citizens use welfare (defined specifically as Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI) at a much lower level than citizens in the same economic state.
From that then the preference to reduce welfare spending in those specific categories has to be given to non-citizens, rather than citizens.
The article also carefully defines immigrants, citizens, and non-citizens:
“About 40 million immigrants reside in the United States, comprising 12.9 percent of the total population.
Of those immigrants, 43.8 percent are naturalized citizens and 56.3 percent are non-citizens—including undocumented immigrants.
[ed. thus ~ 7.3% of immigrants aren’t citizens.
“Immigrants are
– more likely to participate in the labor force,
– lack a high school degree, and to
– have incomes below the poverty line than the native-born.”
“Immigrants begin with lower earnings but over time their incomes improve as they remain here.” [ed as all immigrant studies have always shown]
Some of the stats cited in the report (charts):
Cash assistance for Adults:
– Native born 2.9%
– Non-Citizen 2.7%
Cash assistance for Children
– Native born 11.2%
– Non-Citizen 8.5%
SSI Payments for Adults
– Native born 7.3%
– Non-Citizens 2.5%
SSI Payments for Children
– Native born 8.2%
– Non-Citizens 3.1%
The differences are similar for SNAP and Medicaid for low income families for citizens and non-citizens (easy to read charts).
When you then consider how these immigrant and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants take low wage jobs (which keep our food and other costs of goods and services more affordable), and that each subsequent generation contribute to the advancement of our economics and standards of living as immigrants to the US have always done (assuming they aren’t discriminated against by race in each subsequent generation) the arguments against immigration boil down to another euphemism for white christian supremacy elitism.
Much of the opposition to immigration in the US is based on a perception that immigrants and immigrant families receive more federal & state welfare benefits.
This perception is then used to support anti-immigration policies , and most especially those policies related to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants as well as policies that don’t use immigrant selection criteria to prevent poor and poorly educated persons from qualifying for resident visa’s..
Federal welfare is variously defined however.
In reality it includes SS benefits, and Medicare which apply to the elderly and retired persons who are citizens. It also includes child care tax credits.
An even more broadly defined welfare benefit are federal gov’t tax breaks which apply almost exclusively to the higher incomes and one of the largest is the mortgage interest tax deduction For example,,
Of the mortgage interest tax deduction welfare benefits paid
-32% go to the lower 20% of family incomes,
– 58% go tto middle 60% of incomes, and
– 10% go to the top 20% of incomes.
And yes, nearly nobody considers the mortgage interest tax deduction to be a federal welfare benefit, but its simply another form of federal subsidies paid by the general taxpayers who fully own their homes or who rent.. If the mortgage interest deduction tax credit isn’t welfare than nether is the low income tax credit or SS or Medicare for that matter, but they are all welfare benefits.
Of all federal entitlements (welfare benefits specified by long standing law — actually only since 1935),
– 53% go to those 65 and over
– 20% go to the non-elderly disabled
– 18% go to a working household (non-elderly, non-disabled)
– 9% go to non-elderly, non-disabled households without jobs (and much of that for health care & unemployment insurance).
:As for means tested welfare benefits, in 2011 27% of US households received that form of welfare (the following includes overlaps).
– 19.5% for Medicaid
– 12.5% food stamps
– 11.2% subsidize lunches
– 5% Public Housing
– 4% Unemployment
– 2.7% Veterans compensation
Only 7% of households receive a direct cash benefit (such as TANF).
Obviously these means tested welfare benefits go to the poorest segment of our society with most to families below the poverty level..
The above is sourced from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/?utm_term=.167342423ed4
So “welfare” benefits is variously defined depending on the particular ideologies of those selecting which benefits are “welfare” and which are not.
The question of whether immigrants and non-citizens receive more welfare benefits than native born citizens has to predicated by what “welfare” benefits are included or excluded as well as by whether a child born in the US (who is thus a citizen) to non-citizen immigrant parents, and then whether both parents or only one parent is a citizen are part of the problem of defining welfare benefits to citizens and non-citizens.
This article by CATO institute in 2013 provides a comprehensive analysis — as opposed analysis by the Center for Immigration (CIS)studies which is a immigration opposition group that uses biased statistics to further their interests in limiting immigration… which is the primary source used by opponents of immigration policies.
The CATO article also describes why CIS studies differ so markedly from the CATO and other independent unbiased studies — basically CIS define groups such that the statics are reversed which serves their own interests in limiting immigration.. in other words CIS uses information pre-selected to advance their agenda.
CATO article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
The summarized conclusion in that article is:
“Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the average value of public benefits received per person is generally lower for non-citizens than for natives.
Because of the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost of public benefits to non citizens is substantially less than the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.”
Stated a bit differently, on an Apples to Apples comparison, non-citizens use welfare (defined specifically as Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI) at a much lower level than citizens in the same economic state.
From that then the preference to reduce welfare spending in those specific categories has to be given to non-citizens, rather than citizens.
The article also carefully defines immigrants, citizens, and non-citizens:
“About 40 million immigrants reside in the United States, comprising 12.9 percent of the total population.
Of those immigrants, 43.8 percent are naturalized citizens and 56.3 percent are non-citizens—including undocumented immigrants.
[ed. thus ~ 7.3% of immigrants aren’t citizens.
“Immigrants are
– more likely to participate in the labor force,
– lack a high school degree, and to
– have incomes below the poverty line than the native-born.”
“Immigrants begin with lower earnings but over time their incomes improve as they remain here.” [ed as all immigrant studies have always shown]
Some of the stats cited in the report (charts):
Cash assistance for Adults:
– Native born 2.9%
– Non-Citizen 2.7%
Cash assistance for Children
– Native born 11.2%
– Non-Citizen 8.5%
SSI Payments for Adults
– Native born 7.3%
– Non-Citizens 2.5%
SSI Payments for Children
– Native born 8.2%
– Non-Citizens 3.1%
The differences are similar for SNAP and Medicaid for low income families for citizens and non-citizens (easy to read charts).
When you then consider how these immigrant and non-citizens, including illegal immigrants take low wage jobs (which keep our food and other costs of goods and services more affordable), and that each subsequent generation contribute to the advancement of our economics and standards of living as immigrants to the US have always done (assuming they aren’t discriminated against by race in each subsequent generation) the arguments against immigration boil down to another euphemism for white christian supremacy elitism.