Posted on 06/02/2026 6:53:07 AM PDT by MtnClimber
As you are probably aware, in most circumstances and for most categories of handouts, illegal immigrants in the United States do not qualify for welfare benefits. As I’m using it here, the term “welfare” does not include Social Security or Medicare, which are not restricted by income status; but the term “welfare” does include all of the large number of what are called “means-tested” programs, which in the aggregate consume nearly $1 trillion annually of federal spending (and well over $1 trillion if state contributions are included). The biggest of the “means tested” programs are Medicaid, SNAP (“food stamps”), and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, otherwise known as classic welfare); and there are dozens more. Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from participating in those three big federal welfare programs, and from most (but not all) of the others.
And yet there was the New York Times, in its Sunday (May 31) print edition, with a lead front page headline that may set a new record (if that is possible) for anti-Trump spin: “Trump Cuts Off Life Necessities for Immigrants.” When I saw that, my first reaction was, how can Trump “cut off” illegal immigrants from government benefits (whether or not the benefits are “life necessities”) when they are not eligible for those benefits in the first place?
The Times article (here is a link to an online version with a somewhat different headline) is a typical advocacy piece designed to defend every government benefit and every penny of government spending toward the project of creating perfect fairness and justice on earth at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. To be fair, its discussion of “life necessities” includes not only welfare benefits, but also work authorization. But before getting into the Times piece in more detail, how about answering the question of whether there actually are large numbers of illegal immigrants currently receiving benefits from one or more government means-tested welfare programs?
The Times article does not answer that question. Looking around for the answer, I find a paper dated February 4, 2026 from the Center for Immigration Studies with the title “Welfare Use by Immigrants and the U.S.-Born, 2024.” The paper analyzes 2024 (most recent available) data from the Census Bureau from something called their “2024 Survey of Income and Program Participation.” And the answer is: The percentage of illegal-immigrant-headed households in the U.S. using one or more means-tested welfare programs is (drumroll !!!) — 61%. In other words, it’s actually a substantial majority of all the households headed by illegal immigrants.
How could that possibly be, given that the large majority of the illegal immigrants are specifically ineligible for the large majority of the programs? The simple answer is that there exist a sufficient number of loopholes, exceptions and workarounds such that the exceptions completely overwhelm the supposed rule.
And, as important as the actual exceptions themselves, there is this central facet of how the system works (from the CIS paper):
[I]t should be remembered that the job of those in the welfare bureaucracy is to help low-income residents receive the welfare for which they are eligible.
In other words, the bureaucrats view their job as being to maximize the number of people receiving handouts. Add in that virtually all stigma associated with taking government handouts has gone away, and you get an inexorable dynamic of increasing dependency.
The CIS paper lists the major reasons that illegal-immigrant-headed households are able to collect welfare benefits. The biggest single reason is that many such households (about half) have U.S.-born children who are able to collect benefits as citizens. But other major reasons, according to CIS, include such things as:
- Millions of open-ended forbearances of various sorts were granted by the Biden administration, and most of these removed some if not all welfare ineligibility. From the CIS paper: “[S]everal million illegal immigrants have work authorization, which provides a Social Security number and with it EITC eligibility. This includes those with DACA, TPS, many applicants for asylum, a large share of parolees, and those granted suspension of deportation and withholding of removal.”
- Many states provide non-federally-funded Medicaid benefits to various categories of illegal immigrants. According to the CIS paper, 14 states offer Medicaid to all low-income children regardless of Medicaid status, and several additional states offer Medicaid to low-income pregnant women regardless of immigration status. A smaller number of states offers Medicaid to all below income thresholds regardless of immigration status. (New York is one of those!)
- Some food benefits, particularly the program called “WIC” (Women, Infants and Children), do not disqualify people based on immigration status. Also, some states provide non-federally-backed SNAP benefits without regard to immigration status.
It appears that the main target of the Trump administration current efforts is to rescind the many, many Biden immigration forbearances. For example, the Biden people extended something called “Temporary Protected Status” or TPS to immigrants here illegally from some 17 countries: Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen. That’s right, pretty much anybody who could make it here illegally from places including Afghanistan and Somalia got blanket permission to stay, plus work authorization, from Biden. What could go wrong? The idea behind TPS is that the countries are so dangerous that it is not safe for anybody to go back.
But how about, for example, El Salvador? That one was actually once a very dangerous place, until Nayib Bukele got elected President in 2019. Since then, the murder rate in El Salvador has gone from over 50 per 100,000 population to under 2/100,000. Whatever you might think of Mr. Bukele’s methods, it’s hard to say that El Salvador is still too dangerous to return to.
And thus we get the first heart-rending anecdote from yesterday’s New York Times piece:
For nearly three decades, Raquel Molina — an immigrant from El Salvador who has a valid Social Security number and permission to work in the United States — swabbed the toilets, wiped down the seats and vacuumed the aisles of airplanes at Boston’s Logan International Airport. But last summer, Ms. Molina, 65, was abruptly fired from her $19.75-per-hour cleaning job, alongside dozens of other immigrants who have long legally worked at Logan. Her supervisor told her she no longer had clearance to enter secure areas at the airport. The Trump administration had decided that only U.S. citizens, green card holders and others with more permanent forms of residency should be granted access. . . .
It seems that Ms. Molina was a beneficiary of the TPS program:
In her case, the administration no longer considered T.P.S. a form of “authorized residency,” said Justin Long, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection.
The Times piece, as usual, leaves out almost everything important that you would need to evaluate Ms. Molina’s case. How did she get here originally? How and when did she get the TPS status? What government welfare benefits has she used along the way? You may not think (from what the Times has told us) that Ms. Molina is someone who should be forced to leave the country; but then, the basis on which she has been here has been TPS, and that basis no longer exists.
A concluding line from CIS:
The high use of welfare by immigrants . . . shows that past efforts to prevent immigrants, including illegal immigrants, from using the welfare system have not been very effective when the totality of the welfare system is considered. . . .
It’s not clear to me that the Trump people can make huge strides in reducing the number of illegal-headed households receiving welfare benefits, particularly with hundreds of thousands of state-level welfare administration personnel working against them.
As soon as I see ‘illegal immigrants’ I judge it as unworthy of further attention. The term to use is ‘illegal aliens’.
I had always wondered how it was that illegals could have things kept from them if they weren’t allowed them in the first place. I would guess the right answer is that they need be informed that they have NOTHING coming when they come into our country illegally. And I mean NOTHING & it needs to be clearly stated before they ever get here. That would also mean (apparently)that the Democrat Party need change their ways NOW. Seems to me that there is a very real possibility that this is what is stated in our Constitution.
Social Security funds running low in six years .........
Typical pro-commie trash article. You can tell by the framing. They are illegal aliens, not immigrants. quit playing on the side of the enemy.
As to anchor babies (and I’m NOT speaking of my preference that the SCOTUS find them illegitimate), at a more widely politically palatable minimum, their parents should be forced to take them home with the child having the option to immigrate upon adulthood.
86% of short-term Somalia famiesare on welfare. 75% of long-term Somalia families in MN.
0. If not, then we have a problem.
100%...
Any other number quoted is BS...
“illegal immigrants currently receiving benefits “ is totally different from “HOUSEHOLD headed by illegal immigrants currently receiving benefits”.
There are situations where one spouse is an illegal immigrant and the other spouse is a citizen... or a legal immigrant. There are many, many situations where one parent is an illegal immigrant and the anchor babies are birthright citizens. This latter is what is meant by HOUSEHOLD.
1) Last I checked, anchor babies of Mexican illegals have a lower percentage on welfare than Blacks or Whites...or some other immigrant ethnicities. But Mexican kids are the most numerous.
2) One reason for #1 is that illegals often lack a social security number and are working under the number of their 4 year old kid and make too much to be on welfare... and they don’t want the hassles of getting caught.
3) There are problems. But let’s be factual and not misunderstand the data...or reports of the data.
My quick guess is 100%. I can’t see Democrats not getting them on some sort of welfare.
Remind me who was Congressman Joe Wilson and why did the NYT and Democrats soundly criticize him when he shouted to Obama “you lie?” That was because Obama promised that illegals would never benefit from the ACA or ObamaCare. As Mary Poppins would say, Pie Crust Promises.
That's a good thing. We need to allow it collapse completely.
That policy may still be the real downfall of the US. The country is still full of them. We have some that should have never been allowed in here at any time. Legal or illegal.
“Social Security funds running low in six years .........
That’s a good thing. We need to allow it collapse completely.”
Nope - I paid in a boatload and start collecting my $3K/month next month. Cut off the illegals and fraudsters and there will be enough for the citizens who actually paid in.
It's a ponzi scheme and yes, I paid my way in the system for decades. But I'm okay with never getting a penny as long as we end the program permanently.
“But I’m okay with never getting a penny as long as we end the program permanently.”
Good for you. Since you feel that way I suppose you’ll never apply for SS then? Hmmm?? I could get by without SS but a lot of people need it just to survive.
The problem right here ☝️.
Even FReepers believe that it is the duty of the government to "take care" of our citizens.
Our Founding Fathers would have disagreed with you, sir.
“The problem right here ☝️.
Even FReepers believe that it is the duty of the government to “take care” of our citizens.
Our Founding Fathers would have disagreed with you, sir.”
I had not choice to contribute or not to SS.
You didn’t answer my question:
Since you feel that way I suppose you’ll never apply for SS then? Hmmm??
Or are you just virtue signaling??? Come on - answer.
But I'm okay with never getting a penny as long as we end the program permanently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.