Two years ago, in the heat of the 2024 presidential campaign, our Samantha Koch pointed out that it pays to be illegal in this country. “Clearly, [Kamala] Harris and most leftist officials are in lockstep in their desire to overwhelm our country. They roll out the red carpet of incentives for those who have come here illegally while extending it to those who are making their way to our southern border as we speak,” wrote Koch. “As the floodgates have been open for several years, it is impossible to ignore the dire reality of our nation’s future if we continue to incentivize these illegals.”

Fast-forward 18 months or so, and, despite the immigration successes of the Trump administration, one who wonders about the effects of the green light President Autopen gave to illegal immigrants can wonder no more. A study of publicly available census data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows clearly that immigrants — illegal and otherwise — take up a disproportionate share of government largesse. That includes “Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), free and reduced-price school lunch and breakfast (school meals), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also called food stamps), and subsidized and public housing.”

This CIS study also breaks down recipients by country, which shows that nearly nine out of 10 Afghans are eligible for either (or both) traditional welfare programs and EITC. (We can certainly thank Joe Biden for that one.) Other nations where 70% or more of the immigrants require assistance are the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Ecuador.

As Harris Rigby opines at Not the Bee, “Call me crazy, but I thought the whole idea behind welfare was to help out Americans going through a rough time, and not to help out the entire world who is coming to America.”

Citing any study by the Center for Immigration Studies, however, invites a lot of wrath from the Left, regardless of the facts stated. For years, leftist groups like Media Matters and other so-called fact-checkers have dismissed CIS as “right-wing, anti-immigrant” or “a questionable source.” (The discredited Southern Poverty Law Center still considers it a “hate group.”) But the data in question is straight from the Census Bureau, so if anyone is lying about this, it would be the federal government. Moreover, Rigby’s facetious claim — “Huh, I thought it was stupid rednecks from West Virginia who were the ‘hypocrites’ taking welfare while voting Republican” — leads to the accurate observation that “the left-wing media would have you think that poor whites were the most reliant on welfare!” Yet the CIS data shows that 31% of native-born citizens utilize these programs.

Still, the CIS study also shows that some criticism of immigrants from the Right is unwarranted. “One factor that does not explain immigrant households’ higher use of programs is an unwillingness to work,” the study explains. “In fact, immigrant households are more likely to have a worker present than households headed by the U.S.-born. However, working in no way prevents use of welfare programs. What matters is income, number of dependents, and sometimes assets — not employment.”

Furthermore, “Our findings may lead some to think of non-citizens disparagingly as having come to America to exploit the welfare system. But the evidence is pretty clear that most people come to America to work. Non-citizen men in particular have relatively high rates of employment.”

While the CIS assertion shows there may be some truth to the leftist bromide that immigrants are here to do the jobs Americans won’t do, it doesn’t mean the system can’t be improved.

Study coauthors Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler conclude, “If we wish to avoid high use of welfare by non-citizens in the future, then moving to a system that selects legal immigrants based on their education and skills, and likely income, would make a good deal of sense. Enforcing immigration laws would also be very helpful. Roughly half of all non-citizens in this data are illegal immigrants, yet we still find that non-citizens use the welfare system at very high rates. … The bottom line is that a more selective legal immigration system and robust immigration enforcement are almost certainly the best ways to reduce welfare use associated with non-citizens in the future.”

Turning off the free flow of benefits to those who don’t belong here would go a long way toward stabilizing the government’s bottom line. (Note as well that the CIS study doesn’t look at examples of outright fraud, such as the Somali “Quality Learing Center” in Minnesota.) While welfare and entitlement reform are always a tough slog in the Swamp, the CIS study provides a valuable data point that proponents can use to move public opinion in the right direction.