Migrants receive more benefits than locals
The claim that immigrants receive more welfare and public benefits than native-born citizens is contradicted by the weight of evidence across multiple countries. In the United States, immigrants consume on average 24% less in welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis.
What we know
Research consistently shows that immigrants in the United States and Europe use public benefits at lower rates and lower dollar amounts than native-born citizens. This pattern has been documented across multiple datasets, methodologies, and time periods by researchers from institutions spanning the political spectrum.
A 2026 Cato Institute analysis using Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data found that in 2023, all immigrants consumed 24% less in means-tested welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis. Immigrants were 14.8% of the U.S. population but accounted for only 10.4% of total means-tested welfare and entitlement benefits. Non-citizen immigrants consumed 53% less than native-born Americans. The pattern is partly explained by legal eligibility restrictions — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposed a five-year bar on most public benefits for new immigrants.
Naturalized citizens consume more than native-born Americans in old-age entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) because they tend to be older, having lived in the U.S. long enough to naturalize. This can produce higher headline figures when household-level data is used rather than individual-level comparisons, which is one source of methodological disputes in this literature.
European research similarly rejects the 'benefit tourism' framing. UK and EU studies document that EU migrant workers are net fiscal contributors, paying in more than they take out in public services. Research from the University of York found that EU migrants in the UK were being targeted based on a 'mistaken belief' that EU migrants were 'benefit tourists,' when the evidence showed the opposite.
Some nuance exists: refugee populations, who arrive with limited resources and limited social networks, tend to use certain programs at higher rates than economic migrants, particularly in the first years after arrival. This is expected given the humanitarian nature of refugee status.
Common claims
- Immigrants use welfare at higher rates than native-born citizens.False at the individual level — non-citizen immigrants consume 53% less per capita than native-born Americans in the U.S.
- Immigrants come to receive benefits ('benefit tourism').Not supported — research finds no strong evidence that welfare availability is a primary driver of migration.
- Immigrant households use more benefits.Contested — household data can be higher if U.S.-born children (who are entitled to benefits as citizens) are included; per-capita individual comparisons consistently show lower usage.
- Refugees use similar levels of benefits as economic migrants.False — refugees use more benefits initially, a distinction often omitted from the 'migrants' claim.
Evidence hierarchy
All sources
- Immigrant and Native Consumption of Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Benefits, 2023Cato Institute · 2026
- Immigrants Still Use Much Less Welfare than Native-Born AmericansCato Institute · 2026
- Immigrants and Public Benefits: What Does the Research Say?Bipartisan Policy Center · 2019
- EU Benefit Tourists — Unpacking the MythUniversity of York · 2019
- Immigrants and Public Benefits (Congressional Research)U.S. House of Representatives · 2024