Racist “liberals,” such as left-wing pundits even on the Fox News Channel, like to repeat the lie that legal and illegal immigration is a huge PLUS to the economy, rather than a huge welfare burden.

Well, here are the facts. Remember them as the cry is going up that America should do it’s fair share in the current “migrant” crisis from the Middle East and Africa.

The fact is that legal but especially illegal immigrants are NOT getting by without serious assistance from us:


in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).


49 percent of households headed by a legal immigrant participated in at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 30 percent of native-headed households and 62 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households.


  • In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs. 
  • Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare. 
  • No single program explains immigrants’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives
  • Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent for natives). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent for natives) and use of housing programs is similar to natives. 
  • Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest. 
  • Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent for natives
  • The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households
  • The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education. 
  • The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent for natives
  • In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent). 
  • Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants. 
  • Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. 
  • The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.

The fact is that as far back as the Clinton years, CAIR has demanded, Arab governments have encouraged, and Muslim clerics have fatwa’d Muslim immigration into the US with the openly declared purpose of effectively counter-balancing the “Jewish lobby” and the consequently “pro-Israel bias” in US foreign policy by increasing the Arab and Muslim population in America.

The fact is that 0bama has already been importing tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and African muslims over the years. The administration is now preparing to bring tens of thousands more (and even some GOP presidential hopefuls are nodding approvingly); never mind that ISIS is bragging how they are using that flood of migration to smuggle in thousands of trained jihadist fighters; never mind that everything in Islam is totally incompatible with American culture and America’s founding principles and values.

The fact is that, for some, their assimilation or acculturation consists of going back to fight for ISIS. The fact is that the Gulf Arab states are NOT accepting these “refugees” because they don’t want the increased threat of terrorism in their midst.

The fact is that about 30% of violent crime in the US is being committed by illegals.

The fact is that according to a Mexican government official, we have 30 million recently arrived Mexicans here, not the “11 million” we’ve been talking about.


Refugees do NOT leave their FAMILIES home in the danger zones where their lives are in danger. Now look at the sea of faces of those “Syrian” “refugees.” Estimates are that something like 75-80% are single young men, well fed, well clothed, well enough off to be carrying iPhones.

Refugees do not brutally, disdainfully reject of offers of food, water and clothing, brought to them out of Christian charity or liberal goo-goo headedness. Refugees do not dump the donations on the railroad tracks or in the mud. Yet that’s what the videos show, from Budapest to Calais.

Refugees do not battle police. Refugees do not shout Allah Akhbar at their hosts.

Invaders do.


As to the myth that foreigners are not taking jobs from Americans, qualified Americans, in jobs that Americans DO want todo, here is none other than the Disney company doing precisely that:

Disney Slammed for Flying in Foreigners to Replace US Workers

NYT: Disney Staff Had to Train Foreign Replacements Carrying H-1B Visas

They don’t even bother to pretend that they are doing this because there is a shortage of Americans qualified to do the job, which is the excuse even certain GOP presidential candidates use to call for doubling or tripling the H1B visas. No, instead Disney also forbids their former employees from even coming back as contractors for at least a year.

I’m not going to tell you that “some of my best friends are Indians” (my thesis advisor was, so were some of my coworkers throughout my working years). Instead, I am asking, don’t they have their own country, their own “Silicon Valley” (thanks to us) and the same access to world markets as we do? Why do even they too have to come here to take away jobs we DO want to do? Let them stay home and let them, too, invent and design products to bring to the world market and compete with all comers, as we all are supposed to do in a free market. THAT is what improves the world’s economy and advances civilization; globalization — that is, global corporatization — does the very opposite.