A new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has found that 47 percent of immigrant-headed households in the United States use at least one traditional welfare program—such as food stamps, Medicaid, or subsidized housing—compared to just 28 percent of households headed by U.S .-born citizens. The study, which draws on data from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement covering 2021 to 2025, highlights a persistent 19-percentage-point gap that varies widely by state. The findings, authored by researchers Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler, are renewing scrutiny of the intersection between immigration policy and social safety nets.

The 19-Percentage-Point Gap That Spans All States

According to the CIS analysis, the disparity in welfare use is not confined to states with large foreign-born populations. Even in Idaho, where immigrants make up a small share of residents, half of immigrant-headed households use welfare, compared to only a quarter of citizen-headed households. Nebraska shows an even starker divide: 54 percent of immigrant families on welfare versus 21 percent of native-born families. The researchers note that the gap persists “across virtually every state,” regardless of the size of the immigrant community, as reported by CIS.

The data, covering years 2021 through 2025, provides a comprehensive snapshot of enrollment in means-tested programs. Camarota and Zeigler emphasize that non-citizen households consistently show higher enrollment rates, even after accounting for state-level policy differences.

Why New York's 61 Percent Welfare Rate Stands Out

Among the states with the highest rates of immigrant welfare use, New York tops the list: 61 percent of immigrant-headed households receive benefits, compared to 33 percent of those headed by U.S.-born citizens, according to the CIS analysis. Massachusetts (55 percent), California (54 percent), Arizona (53 percent), and Maryland (50 percent) also report immigrant enrollment rates above or at the 50 percent mark. The report says that these disparities are larger in states where the foreign-born population is both sizable and concentrated, but it does not break down welfare use by immigration status or program type.

The findings underscore that legal status—and the restrictions often attached to it—may not be enough to deter enrollment. Camarota and Zeigler point out that although many immigrants face eligibility hurdles, the data show that “such barriers have not prevented a large share of non-citizen households from enrolling.”

The Public Charge Rule and the Enforcement Gap

A core question raised by the CIS analysis is whether existing restrictions on immigrant welfare access are effectively enforced. The report references “public charge rules and eligibility criteria” that are supposed to limit non-citizen enrollment, yet the data suggest a significant gap between policy and practice. Proponents of stricter immigration controls argue that the 19-percentage-point gap itself is evidence that reforms are needed, as the CIS analysis aligns with decades of similar research.

However, the study does not examine how many of the immigrant-headed households are legal permanent residents, visa holders, or undocumented—a distinction that matters for enforcement. Moreover, as advocates for immigrants counter, higher usage may reflect larger family sizes and lower average incomes among foreign-born residents, not disproportionate reliance on benefits.

What the Current Population Survey Data Does—and Doesn't—Reveal

The CIS analysis relies on the Current Population Survey, a federal survey that tracks demographic and economic characteristics. The researchers used the Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2021-2025, which includes detailed questions about program participation. But the analysis does not control for variables such as income level, family size, or length of time in the United States. According to the report, higher welfare use among immigrants is “consistent” with prior studies, but it stops short of attributing the gap to any single cause.

Open questions remain: How many immigrant-headed households are ineligible yet still enrolled? What share of welfare spending goes to immigrant families? And how do state-level administrative practices affect enrollment rates? The CIS data provide a benchmark but not a complete picture.

Who Is the Missing Voice in This Data?

The analysis focuses solely on household-level usage of welfare programs. It does not break down enrollment by citizenship status, visa category, or length of residency. that means policymakers cannot tell from this report alone whether the gap is driven by recent arrivals, long-time green card holders, or naturalized citizens. As debates over immigration reform continue, these specifics will be critical to determining whether the welfare gap signals a need for stricter enforcement—or a reflection of broader economic dispaarities.