In a new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of government survey data from 2024, my co-author Karen Zeigler and I found that 53 percent of all households headed by immigrants use one or more welfare programs, compared with 37 percent of U.S.-born households. But a recent report by the Cato Institute finds immigrant use of welfare is lower than among the native-born. How can these findings be reconciled?
The answer depends on the exact question being posed. If we want to know how much welfare immigrants receive directly, excluding benefits received by their U.S.-born dependent children, then Cato’s approach will give you the answer. By contrast, if we want to know how much extra burden is placed on the welfare system because immigrants are in the country — a calculation that necessarily includes the welfare consumed by their dependent children — then the more relevant numbers are in our report.
Both organizations used the Census Bureau’s 2024 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Our approach looks at the share of immigrant- or native-headed households using each program. Immigrants, typically referred to as the “foreign born” by the government, are primarily naturalized citizens, permanent residents, or illegal immigrants. (Yes, illegal immigrants are included in government surveys.) We are basically measuring welfare use by immigrants and their U.S.-born dependent children, versus natives and their children.
By contrast, Cato looked at individual recipients of welfare payments (or the cash equivalent). Benefits received by the U.S.-born dependent children (under the age of 18) of immigrants are attributed to the U.S.-born, not to immigrants. This matters enormously because roughly one-fourth of all children in poverty today are U.S.-born with an immigrant parent. As American citizens, these children have full welfare eligibility and make extensive use of the entire welfare system. By assigning benefits in this way, Cato significantly understates immigrant welfare use, while inflating use by natives.
For Cato’s approach to make sense, one would have to believe that when immigrants come to America and have children whom they cannot support, and subsequently turn to the taxpayer for support, this has nothing to do with immigrants or immigration policy. Yet the billions of dollars spent on welfare for immigrants’ dependent children would not exist if their parents were not in the country. Furthermore, when the government provides money, food, housing, or medical care to children, it is a clear benefit to their parents who are legally obligated to care for them.
. . .