Even as massive fraud schemes are uncovered in Minnesota, orchestrated primarily by Somali refugees, Democrats are circling the wagons.
Refugees and asylum-seekers provide a substantial net benefit to the United States, they claim, generating more wealth than they take from the government.
But that talking point is based on a federal study that was rejected in 2017 by the first Trump administration as methodologically unsound and preposterous in its conclusions. The study was resurrected and expanded by the Biden administration in 2024.
Today, 73% of Somali households have at least one member enrolled in Medicaid, and 89% of Somali families with children participate in at least one welfare program.
These realities stand in stark contrast to the glowing conclusions of the Biden report, which claims refugees and asylees add a net $8.25 billion annually to federal coffers.
Lots of exclusions
How does this report somehow find that refugees, a population with demonstrably higher welfare usage, outperform the average American fiscally?
First, by omitting major government spending programs.
It excludes refugee usage of state-level General Assistance, a limited cash welfare program that is available in about half of states. It left out the cost of English language learning programs and translation services. Other federal social programs were also ignored, such as subsidies for Obamacare insurance premiums.
Of the welfare programs included, the study recognizes that usage by refugees and asylees is significantly higher than usage by the US population.
Food stamp (SNAP) participation, for example, stands at 15.5% nationwide but rises to 21.4% among refugees.
Medicaid and CHIP enrollment shows a similar pattern: 17.2% of Americans participate, compared with 23.6% of refugees or 26.5% when US-born children of refugees are included.
Disparities are even more pronounced in other programs. Usage of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the cash welfare program for the elderly and disabled, is nearly three times higher among refugees and asylees than among the general population (7.3% versus 2.6%).
Housing assistance participation more than doubles, rising from 3.3% nationally to 7.5% for refugees. Child Tax Credit usage likewise doubles, increasing from 6.2% to 12.9%.
Includes Social Security
Given the high welfare usage of this group, how did they not only manage a positive net fiscal contribution, but a fiscal impact that outperforms the average American?
Most significantly, the report counts Social Security as welfare, and that program is used more by non-refugee Americans — because they have longer work histories than refugees.
The study treats a monthly Social Security check for retirees as if it were a welfare check, SNAP benefits or Medicaid.
In the theoretical world of this study, a retiree who worked and paid taxes for 40 years and is now living solely off Social Security is a net fiscal drain on the government, while a working-age refugee receiving SNAP benefits with a modest taxable income would be counted as a net contributor.
Why is all this important?
Because the report is used to justify increasing the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the US, falsely claiming it doesn’t cost us a thing.
The study even says: “Understanding this [financial] impact is important to decision-makers at all levels of government. Federal, state, and local spending is a consideration when, for example, establishing the annual ceiling on refugee admissions.”
Unsurprisingly, the study has taken a front row in the refugee resettlement contractors’ lobbying efforts. It has been cited positively by the Congressional Budget Office, a Washington Post op-ed, the Wilson Center and other organizations.
If left unchallenged, the report will continue to encourage an ever-growing mountain of non-existent cash. It should be rejected.
Don Barnett is a board member at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The post False refugee study used by Dems to justify open borders — and massive spending appeared first on New York Post.
