Refugee Resettlement Watch

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 5,857 other followers

  • Reaching me by mail

    You can reach me by e-mail here:

    (But my inbox is so overloaded most of the time, it is hard to keep up.)

    Or, since some of you have asked, I have a post office box and you can reach me there by snail mail!

    Ann Corcoran
    P.O. Box 55
    Fairplay, MD 21733

  • Social

  • Refugee Info Resource

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 7,858,163 hits

Posts Tagged ‘Center for Immigration Studies’

St. Cloud city councilman Jeff Johnson to speak in Washington

Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 18, 2018

Update March 24th:  You can see a video of the panel discussion here at CIS.

And, the St. Cloud Times once again shows how biased it is against anyone who challenges the power in that city and state that is hauling in third world workers for the slaughterhouse industry ( while faking humanitarian concern!) by falling for the Southern Poverty Law Centers‘ shoddy research.

Stephanie Dickrell

St. Cloud Times reporter shows her bias (again). Stephanie Dickrell

(RRW is listed as a “hate group” as well, and as you know I’m a single blogger/journalist with NO group—so much for their research.)

And, by the way,  Breitbart has a big story on Friday entitled:

Disgraced Media Already Hit with Massive Layoffs in 2018

Newspapers are going down and sloppy work and biased reporting by the likes of the St. Cloud Times will eventually bring it down too!

This is what I mean….

In large type, reporter Stephanie Dickrell and her editor post this subheadline so as to bias readers right up front.

Group hosting panel was labeled an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016

Here is some of Dickrell’s story:

Jeff Johnson

Councilman Jeff Johnson

A St. Cloud City Council member will travel to the nation’s capital this week to discuss the local impact of refugee resettlement.

Jeff Johnson will be part of a panel Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., discussing whether states should be able to opt out of the federal Refugee Resettlement Program.

The host of the panel, the Center for Immigration Studies, says its agenda is pro-immigrant but for low immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center listed it as an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016.

Last fall Johnson proposed a moratorium on refugee resettlement in St. Cloud. The motion failed and an ensuing council vote declared St. Cloud a welcoming city.

Don Barnett 2

Don Barnett

The National Press Club panel discussion — “Should States Be Able to Opt Out of the Refugee Resettlement Program?” — will use a January report by center fellow Don Barnett as a starting point. He outlined what say states have in refugee resettlement, highlighting “federal overreach.”

He includes a history of the states’ interactions with the refugee program and recommendations for better defining the state role. It also includes a case study of a recent federal lawsuit filed by the state of Tennessee which claims the refugee resettlement program was an imposition by Washington over which the state had no control.

In addition to Johnson and Barnett, the panel will include Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which represented Tennessee in the lawsuit. Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian will serve as moderator.

More here.

Minnesotans, this is the time to develop more alternative media in the state.

Papers like the St. Cloud Times (which swallows the lies of Leftwing money-grubbing groups like SPLC) will die and you need to be ready with other sources of news that support your interests and concerns.  And, the more the merrier!

See my ever-expanding archive on St. Cloud by clicking here.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Pockets of Resistance, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Resettlement cities, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Center for Immigration Studies does the work, gives us a compilation of government data on immigrants

Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 12, 2018

This should keep enquiring minds busy!

Here is CIS’s press release this morning:

Launching of New Immigration Data Portal

Washington, D.C. (March 12, 2018) – The Center for Immigration Studies announces the creation of a new immigration data portal. The portal consolidates government agencies’ most recent immigration statistics in one location, allowing easy access to detailed information on a multitude of key topics in immigration such as crime, illegal immigration, and labor.

logo CIS

Visit the data portal at:

The Center’s goal is to lessen the challenge of finding important immigration statistics so that fact-based research can play a larger role in informing the national debate on immigration policy. Whether the user is searching for specific numbers on refugee arrivals by country of origin, E-verify statistics reports, or the jobsite location and wage data of requested foreign workers, this portal will make finding the data dramatically easier.

Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director, said “It is my hope that the immigration debate will benefit from the launching of this data portal. It is imperative that immigration policy be formed by accurate data; this initiative will make it easier for all parties to access crucial immigration statistics.”

This post is filed in my ‘Where to find information‘ category and in ‘Refugee Statistics.

Posted in Other Immigration, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Refugees do NOT bring in more tax dollars than they consume in social services

Posted by Ann Corcoran on June 15, 2017

This news was all over my alerts yesterday morning (one version of the story at Business Insider):

Study finds refugees actually pay the US government thousands more than they get from it

The glowing (and deceptive) report was clearly released now as a run-up to World Refugee Day next Tuesday and has probably been widely distributed on Capitol Hill by the legion of lobbyists for the refugee industry.

My reaction was that the conclusions fly in the face of all common sense.  And, LOL!, I wondered right away whether they included the costs to the criminal justice system.  Imagine how much those life prison terms of some refugee murderers and terrorists cost the American taxpayer!

Esar Met, a Burmese refugee raped and murdered a little girl in his apartment complex shortly after arriving in the US (he had surely not paid in any taxes yet!) and is doing life in prison. Someone with some economic training and the interest should figure out what it costs taxpayers for these expensive trials and life sentences. One of my many posts on Met is here:

So, I wondered if  there was a rebuttal and sure enough there is!

If you see the deceptive news published in your newspaper, you must respond with a ‘letter to the editor’ using key points of Jason Richwine’s rebuttal.  You can’t let their propaganda go unanswered.

The Center for Immigration Studies responded here this morning (emphasis is mine):

Refugees do not pay their own way

A working paper released this week by Notre Dame economists William Evans and Daniel Fitzgerald makes the head-scratching claim that refugees, despite below-average incomes and high rates of welfare use, pay $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits during their first 20 years in the United States. Immigration-boosting wonks such as Matt Yglesias and Dylan Matthews immediately trumpeted the findings, and the Washington Post and FiveThirtyEight added favorable write-ups.

They should have been more skeptical. The claim that refugees contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits is simply implausible.


So how does the Evans-Fitzgerald paper come to such an implausible result? First, the authors count all (or nearly all) taxes paid by refugees but reduce the services they receive to six social programs — cash welfare, SSI, Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. All other costs that governments might incur from immigration — housing, infrastructure, education, law enforcement, and so on — do not count.

Second, they fail to adjust for the underreporting of those social programs…


Third, the paper excludes refugees’ minor children. When refugees cannot afford to provide food, housing, or medical care to their children, taxpayers foot the bill. Most of those costs are omitted.

Fourth, the authors restrict the refugee age range to 18-65, cutting off the analysis just before the age where most people stop working and begin participating in the nation’s costly retirement programs.

By the way, we bring in a significant number of refugees to the US over the age of 65 who immediately draw on SSI.

More here.

Don’t miss CIS’s previous detailed study of the cost of refugees to taxpayers, here.  Middle Easterners are especially expensive!

This is posted in my ‘What you can do’ category (created because new readers are asking).  If you see the deceptive report mentioned in your local newspaper do not let it go unanswered!  Send a letter to your member of  Congress too and tell him or her (in advance) to watch for the propaganda (Big Lie!) campaign about refugees supposedly adding to the US economy. (The cheap labor supply might add to the bottomline at Tyson Foods, but not to the overall economy!).

Posted in Changing the way we live, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies, What you can do | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

CIS: Entire refugee admissions system is broken!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on January 6, 2017

Nayla Rush at the Center for Immigration Studies has done the work for us and analyzed a new UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) report which makes suggestions for reform that basically increases the number of migrants (aka refugees) that would move from the third world to the first.

Watch for it! They will be pushing for “alternative pathways” because they know that the refugee system they have been relying on is crumbling.

Of course, one option in that reform (in my opinion) should be to sever our connection with the UNHCR altogether and choose our own refugees (and how many!) and thus leave the UN out of our immigration business!

Wouldn’t it be great if Trump UN Ambassador Nikki Haley could preside over the process of severing our ties to the UNHCR!  (I can dream!)

Here is Rush’s opening paragraph:

The latest United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) resettlement assessment report summarizes its 2015 activities and introduces its 2017 strategic direction and needs.1 At a time when refugee protection is addressed on a global scale, the report, “UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017”, provides us with insightful information about submission categories and acceptance rates, top resettlement countries of origin and destination, and more. It also suggests how badly in need of reform the entire refugee system is. [Of course the UN’s idea of reform and ours is very different!—ed]

Go here to read her analysis.

Posted in 2016 Presidential campaign, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, The Opposition, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

America’s Refugee Admissions Program a dumping ground, Krikorian has it exactly right!

Posted by Ann Corcoran on December 9, 2016

In an article posted last evening at National Review Online, Center for Immigration Studies Director, Mark Krikorian highlights one of the most important outrages we have observed with how our present Refugee Admissions Program is being used (and abused!).


Fazliddin Kurbanov sentenced in Idaho last year on Islamic terrorism charges is one of hundreds (thousands?) of Uzbek Muslims who obtained refugee status in the US during the Bush Administration. Why? Uzbekistan is a safe Muslim country. Were they too radical for the Muslim government there?

It is something we pointed out here in 2012 (#7) when we gave Ten Reasons there should be a moratorium on the program.  We said Congress must disallow the use of the program for other foreign policy objectives of the US State Department.

At NRO (The Corner) Krikorian uses the news-hook of the recent Somali terror attack at Ohio State and the insane Australia deal and then says this (emphasis is mine):

Whether or not the Australia scheme reaches fruition, it’s important to realize that it’s not unusual. For years now, the State Department has been using resettlement back in America-land as a way of making other countries’ diplomatic problems go away. They’ve done this with the Somali Bantu, Bhutanese in Nepal, Meskhetian Turks from Russia, Bangladeshi Rohingya from Burma, and others. What they have in common is that they are groups the State Department has decided to collectively move to the United States for foreign policy purposes. In other words, the refugee program is being used as a way of smoothing over diplomatic disputes in the interest of maintaining global stability, with the “irritant” populations being dumped in American communities for the hicks in flyoverland to cope with as best they can. This is yet another area of immigration policy that urgently needs change.

Read Krikorian’s whole piece here.

We might also add airlifts of Kosovars to Ft. Dix during the Clinton administration (many went home later) and the airlift of the mysterious (and sometimes unwilling!) Uzbeks to the US for some foreign policy goal of the George W. Bush administration.

Changing the subject, this reminds me!  Recently those resettlement contractors going in to new towns to sell the RAP where the citizens are uninformed and naive are being told that no refugee has been involved in terror cases in the US.  It is such a big lie and I really need to put together a list of all the cases I know about!

Posted in Changing the way we live, Crimes, diversity's dark side, Reforms needed, Refugee Resettlement Program | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

Unaccompanied Alien Children eating up Health and Human Service’s agency budgets

Posted by Ann Corcoran on December 2, 2016

You’ve probably all seen this news about the Dept. of Health and Services scrambling to re-direct money from other areas of the agency budget to take care of the largest number of ‘children’ (ever!) entering the US illegally.


Seems like the Trump Admin. might be able to figure out exactly where the wall needs to be!

I’m posting this so that as we move ahead in the coming days with news on the budget for FY17 and the Continuing Resolution, you have some background understanding of the dilemma the refugee program is in during the waning days of the Obama Administration.  The ‘kids’ (who are NOT refugees) are gobbling up limited funds putting their needs in direct competition with the refugees entering the US from all over the world. (In addition to depriving US citizens of other needed programs.)

For new readers, the Office of Refugee Resettlement is an agency at HHS which has been given the duty of taking care of the illegal alien kids.

Here is Jessica Vaughan at the Center for Immigration Studies:

An average of 255 illegal alien youths were taken into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) every day this month, according to the latest figures the agency provided to Congress. This is the largest number of illegal alien children ever in the care of the federal government. To pay for it, the agency says it will need an additional one or two billion dollars for the next year – above and beyond the $1.2 billion spent in 2016 and proposed for 2017 – depending on how many more arrive. For now, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where ORR resides, is diverting $167 million from other programs to cover the cost of services for these new illegal arrivals through December 9, when the current continuing resolution expires.

An email to congressional staff from Barbara Clark of the HHS legislative liaison office, dated November 28, 2016, stated:

Daily referrals of unaccompanied children averaged 247 over the last seven days, and 255 so far in November. For comparison, referrals averaged 185 per day in November of FY 2016 and 64 per day in November of FY 2015. As of November 27, 2016, the number of children in ORR care is approximately 11,200.

A separate email informed congressional offices of HHS Secretary Burwell’s intent to transfer money from other programs to ORR to pay for shelters, health care, schooling, recreation, and other services for the new illegal arrivals, who typically were brought to the border by smugglers paid by their parents, who often are living in the United States illegally.

Continue reading here and see which programs are being robbed to pay for the ‘kids.’

About the map: I was searching for a graph to show how many ‘kids’ (mostly Central American teenage boys, see here) had come in to the US in the most recent years, but every graph I found only went to 2014. So what is up with that!  I figured the map would be a nice addition to the post instead.

By the way, this post is tagged ‘Unaccompanied minors’ because many years ago they were called that and that is how I first tagged the topic.

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Immigration fraud, Obama, Other Immigration, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

More on Sunday rally in DC: goal is to increase refugee numbers for FY2017

Posted by Ann Corcoran on August 26, 2016

And, here Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies reminds us of the huge cost of resettling each refugee to your town or city.  It is far less expensive to find safe places in the Middle East for the Syrians, says Krikorian.

Safe zones!

In fact, Donald  Trump has remarked in the past that he would like to see “safe zones” established where refugees could be protected until the conflict is over in Syria.  I’m thinking one such safe zone could be in Saudi Arabia!

Maybe Trump could make a deal with the Saudis who at present do not take care of their fellow Muslim refugees (a fact that we have chronicled over the years) to establish a safe zone in the kingdom.

From the Daily Signal about Sunday’s Rally for Refugees (see our earlier post here).  Emphasis below is mine:

Are you concerned about the plight of international refugees? Would you like to see the U.S. government take decisive, constructive action on behalf of displaced persons across the globe who have been forced to flee their homes?


Krikorian points out that there are much more fiscally responsible ways to care for Syrian refugees than to scatter them through hundreds of American towns.

If so, you’re invited to “stand up against the voices of intolerance” this Sunday in Washington, D.C., where you can join forces with other concerned Americans.  [If you are concerned about the costs and social upheaval for both refugees and for Americans when refugees are secretly placed in your towns, you are intolerant! Get used to it!—ed]

But if you do participate, policy analysts who have examined the refugee crisis want you to know they have good reason to believe the rally is a highly politicized event organized for the purpose of lobbying the Obama administration and Congress to allow more refugees into the U.S.—including those from war-torn Syria and Iraq who may have ties to terrorism.

A major contributor to causes on the left, the Tides Foundation, is collecting contributions for the rally.


High Costs of Resettling Refugees

A report by the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies found that it costs 12 times as much to resettle a refugee in America than it does to provide for services and relief to the same refugee in the Middle East.

The nonprofit, nonpartisan research outfit included State Department expenditures, welfare use rates, and other figures and benefits from the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and other U.S. agencies. Its report says:

Based on that information, this analysis finds that the costs of resettling refugees in the United States are quite high, even without considering all of the costs refugees create. We conservatively estimate that the costs total $64,370 in the first five years for each Middle Eastern refugee. This is 61 times what it costs to care for one Syrian refugee in a neighboring country for a single year or about 12 times the cost of providing for a refugee for five years.

“The organizers, funders, and the supporting groups are putting this rally together to exert pressure to ensure that the Obama administration increases the admission of Syrians into the U.S.,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal.


Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said he sees more than mere happenstance at work in the timing of the rally: Obama is set to play host to a refugee summit at the U.N. on Sept. 20. The president also is expected to release his fiscal year 2017 plan for refugees by the end of September.

The rally is not only “to exert pressure to ensure that the Obama administration increases the admission of Syrians,” Krikorian said, but “timed to influence the number of refugees the State Department is trying to settle.”

And, it is my view that it is also to exert pressure on Congress to loosen the purse strings on funding for the program as Congress addresses the budget this fall. The nine federal contractors*** who resettle refugees in your towns and cities want to expand their operations to even more towns and they need your money to do that!

We have talked about this before, but I’m going to be a broken record on it!  Your focus for the next couple of months should be on pressuring your Member of Congress to grow a spine and oppose the expenditure of your money on resettling ever larger numbers of refugees.

Don’t focus your anger at Obama and the Progressives, they are doing what they always do—focus on someone you can change—your member of Congress and US Senators up for re-election in a little over two months.

***The nine federal resettlement contractors (participating in the rally Sunday) which are almost completely funded with your tax dollars:

Posted in Changing the way we live, Colonization, Community destabilization, Muslim refugees, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, The Opposition | Tagged: , , | 11 Comments »

New report from CIS: Obama’s illegal aliens disguised as refugees

Posted by Ann Corcoran on May 2, 2016

Here (below) is the press release from the Center for Immigration Studies this morning.  In fact this effort to expand the definition of who is a refugee is going on world wide as so-called ‘Unaccompanied Alien Children’ (largely teenage boys) are also flooding into Europe. It is not a coincidence!

Teenage boys Texas

Unaccompanied Alien Children arrive at US border in 2014 (many more have come since then).

For nearly 9 years I’ve watched the definition of the word ‘refugee’ be stretched like a rubber band until now most in the media think that anyone on the move for any reason is a refugee!

But, that is exactly what the No-Borders gang is pushing for.  When you read this remember that a legitimate refugee must prove that he/she has been persecuted for one of several reasons (such as race, religion, political persuasion).

Someone running from crime and wanting a better life does NOT a refugee make!

(emphasis below is mine)


WASHINGTON, DC (May 2, 2016) — The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report, “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States”, analyzing the Obama administration’s persistent efforts to relocate the children of Central American illegal aliens to the United States. The report is online at

When the illegal flow of mostly teen-age boys from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador across the border reached record levels in 2014, the administration at first tried to arrange for them to stay by presenting them as victims of trafficking. But for the immigration benefits of being trafficked to apply, there must be coercion and exploitation; this was not the case.

Next, the administration established the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, to fly the young people directly to the United States. But this program requires that the family members to whom the children are delivered have some form of legal status in the U.S. Because the majority of the minors’ family members in the U.S. are illegal immigrants, the program has not been widely used.

Thus the latest initiative: a new “family reunification program” specifically designed for illegal aliens and their children. In collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the administration is planning to enable illegal aliens to have their children brought to them in the U.S., with the minors labelled as “refugees.” However, by the UN’s own admission most of these children do not qualify as refugees.

The cost to American taxpayers of reuniting illegal aliens with the children they left behind is substantial. The FY 2017 budget request for the Unaccompanied Children (UC) program totals $1.321 billion, making the cost for one UAC likely to be more than $17,000. This is more than double the cost per UAC in 2010.

Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center and author of the report, writes: “We can empathize with children wishing to reunite with family members who make it to the United States before them. … We can also, however, question this administration’s policies and motives and wonder if it is in the best interest of the American people to welcome these children here. … We might even call this program what it really is: a family reunification program specially crafted for illegal aliens and their children under the cover of refugee resettlement.”

Go here for our very extensive archive on the problem (originally archived as Unaccompanied minors).

Posted in Community destabilization, Crimes, Immigration fraud, Obama, Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

What is the cost to admit (and care for!) refugees in the US?

Posted by Ann Corcoran on October 23, 2015

pigNobody really knows, nor does the refugee industry want you to know!

We just now reported on a leaked report in the UK that puts the figure at around $36,000 per refugee per year in the UK, but as far as we have ever seen, no official government estimate has been made of the cost of resettlement in the US.  That is why the bill introduced by Rep. Brian Babin of Texas is so important. Update:  See more on the Babin bill, here.

Syrians arrive KY

Starving Syrian refugees arrive in Kentucky earlier this year. Do Mitch and Rand know that KY is so far this fiscal year the leading Syrian resettlement state?

Here Jessica Vaughn (Center for Immigration Studies) writing at National Review (‘Help Refugees, but Stop Feeding the Refugee-Resettlement Industry’) references a Heritage Foundation report:

The Heritage Foundation has calculated that the 10,000 Syrians who would be admitted under the president’s plan would eventually collect about $6.5 billion in services over the next 50 years. Much of that would be borne by local communities.

Read it all.

And see here at The Atlantic someone did a quick and dirty calculation, but this number only represents the cost of bringing 70,000 refugees in to the country and does not include the welfare benefits refugees receive, the healthcare or the cost of educating the children.

The process of bringing refugees to the U.S. is handled by three agencies: the State Department, which leads the program, USCIS at the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Together, the three agencies spent about $1.1 billion last year. That’s $1.1 billion for 70,000 refugees, which comes to about $15,714 per person.

Getting at the real costs to federal, state and local taxpayers is an important goal going forward, but be prepared for all involved in the industry to stonewall such an effort.

Photo caption:  Go here to see how KY is Numero uno so far in October for receiving Syrian refugees (97% of those who have arrived so far are Muslims).

Posted in Refugee Resettlement Program, Taxpayer goodies | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

CIS: Welfare Use High for Both Legal and Illegal Immigrants

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 10, 2015

 49% for Legal Households, 62% for Illegals

Here is the complete Center for Immigration Studies press release:

WASHINGTON, DC (September 10, 2015) — Low levels of education — not legal status — are the main reason immigrant welfare use is high, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies. The report estimates welfare use separately for legal and illegal immigrant households based on Census Bureau data, and is a companion to the Center’s study released last week examining all immigrant households. The new analysis shows that legal immigrant households make extensive use of most welfare programs, while illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through U.S.-born children.

“Welfare use by illegal immigrant households is certainly a concern, but the bigger issue is welfare use by legal immigrants,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research and author of the report. “Three-fourths of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants. Legal immigration is supposed to benefit the country, yet so many legal immigrants are not able to support themselves or their children. This raises important questions about the selection criteria used for legal immigration.”


View the entire report at:

Among the findings:

~An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.

~Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.

~Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.

~Of legal immigrant households with children, 72 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.

~Of households headed by immigrants in the country illegally, we estimate that 62 percent used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of native households.

~Households headed by immigrants illegally in the country have higher use rates than native households overall and for food programs (57 percent vs. 22 percent) and Medicaid (51 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of cash programs by illegal immigrants is lower than use by natives (5 percent vs. 10 percent), as is use of housing programs (4 percent vs. 6 percent).

~Of illegal immigrant households with children, 87 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.

~There is a worker present in 85 percent of legal immigrant-headed households and 95 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households. But while most immigrant households have a worker, many are less-educated, earn low wages, and are thus eligible for welfare.

~Education level plays a larger role in explaining welfare use than legal status. The most extensive use of welfare is by less-educated immigrants who are in the country legally. Of households headed by legal immigrants without a high school diploma, 75 percent use one or more welfare programs, as do 64 percent of households headed by legal immigrants with only a high school education.

~The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.

~Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time. Some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

# # #

Be sure to see CIS’s previous announcement about how immigrants of all kinds use welfare at a higher rate than native born Americans.


For readers who are researching the Refugee Resettlement Program, go here for annual reports to Congress which contain information about welfare use by refugees.

In the most recent year (2013) available, note that on page 101, refugees are using public assistance at a much higher rate than other LEGAL immigrants shown in the table above.  Remember it is the contractor’s job to get their ‘clients’ (refugees) signed up for “services.”  Refugees thus benefit to a greater degree than other legal immigrants partly because you pay a supposed non-profit to guide them through the process of signing them up for their welfare benefits.

21% of refugees are using SSI

56% are using Medicaid

74% are getting food stamps (SNAP)

23% are in public housing or subsidized housing

This post is filed in our categories where to find information and ‘refugee statistics.’

Oops!  Forgot to mention that the whole premise of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden) was that refugees were to be self-sufficient very quickly, they were not meant to be a burden on the taxpayer—so much for that promise!

Posted in Refugee Resettlement Program, Refugee statistics, Taxpayer goodies, Where to find information | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: