When it comes to low-skilled immigrants, one could actually argue that low-skilled legal immigrants are a larger burden on the system than low-skilled illegal immigrants. It’s much more difficult for illegal immigrants to access the welfare system due to their lack of documentation, though they can still impose massive costs on public services if they have children (who will be legal Americans by birth). At least that’ll take a few years before those costs are inflicted.Most immigrants use welfare at a higher rate than native households, with the exclusion of European and South Asian immigrants.
That is, unless President Donald Trump can do something about it.
While there already is a 1996 law on the books (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) which bars immigrants who entered the country on or after August 1996 from receiving means-tested public benefits for five years, Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer said at a June 23 press briefing that Trump was aware of the 1996 law, noting however “that the law, while on the books, has not been enforced and clearly either needs to be reexamined, enforced, or new legislation needs to be introduced.”
Such a proposal is extremely popular across partisan lines, as according to Rasmussen, after President Trump said at a rally in Iowa last week that immigrants “must be able to support themselves financially,” and called for stricter enforcement of laws that prevent them from receiving welfare until they’ve been in the United States at least five years, it appears most voters are on board with such laws.A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 62 person of Likely U.S. Voters favor barring new immigrants to the United States from receiving welfare benefits for at least five years. Twenty-six percent (26 percent) oppose such laws, but 12 percent are undecided.
Support for the proposal was highest among middle-class Americans earning between $30,000-$50,000 a year, 72 percent of which supported the proposal. Among moderates, 61 percent are on board.
Is there really any case against this? We have no obligation to let people into our country who are going to be a net drain on it. Such a proposal not only would reduce the amount of welfare dollars the government is shelling out, it would encourage high-skilled immigration into America over low-skilled immigration.[Note: This post was written by Matt Palumbo. He is a co-author of the new book A Paradoxical Alliance: Islam and the Left, and can be found on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]