Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny, Terror, and Hamas: HERE.
While some Afghans did help the Americans as interpreters during the war in Afghanistan, this fact has been used to bring in far more Afghans than the number who served as interpreters. Some Americans feel they have a “duty” to help these Afghans — who were, in fact, only doing their job because it paid handsomely, and not because they were bravely fighting for democracy in their country — to be admitted to the United States. Much has been made by the pro-immigrant lobby, that trots out American servicemen to declare that “we owe these people— the Afghans — so much and of course we must take them in.”
Not only are many more Afghans being admitted than were ever employed by the U.S. Army as interpreters or guides, but they bring their very large extended families with them. And they are a terrific expense: most of them have no marketable skills in an advanced economy, and rely for every sort of benefit — housing, medical care, education food, family allowances, pocket money — on the generosity of the American welfare state. It turns out that most of the Afghani families who have been admitted as refugees are costing our government far more than any other immigrant group. Furthermore, the number of Afghans claiming refugee status has exploded from 22,000 in 1990 to 250,00 in 2024. More on this unusual expense can be found here: “Analysis: 85% of Afghan Households with Children Are on Welfare in U.S.,” by John Binder, Breitbart, January 20, 2026:
The overwhelming majority of households headed by Afghan immigrants with children in the home are on one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare in the United States, newly released analysis reveals.
The analysis, published by Jason Richwine at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), reviews Census Bureau data on Afghan immigrants in the U.S. — an immigrant group that has exploded from just 22,000 in 1990 to almost a quarter of a million as of 2024.
Most significantly, the Census data shows that almost all Afghan households with children are on publicly funded welfare — similar to that of Somali immigrant households with children in Minnesota, where 81 percent of such households are on at least one form of welfare.
In particular, the data shows that 85 percent of Afghan households with children are on one or more forms of welfare — including 81 percent on Medicaid, 61 percent on food stamps, and 15 percent on cash assistance.
Compare this massive absorption of welfare by the Afghan immigrant population to native-born American households with children, 40 percent of which consume welfare, including 37 percent on Medicaid, 18 percent on food stamps, and just seven percent on cash assistance.
In general, 72 percent of Afghan households are on welfare, including 68 percent on Medicaid, 47 percent on food stamps, and 14 percent on cash assistance.
Meanwhile, just 26 percent of native-born American households are on welfare, including 23 percent on Medicaid, 11 percent on food stamps, and 7 percent on cash assistance.
Richwine suggests that the high rate of Afghan immigrants on welfare could indicate that fraud plays a role, as it has in the Somali immigrant population, as recent federal investigations have uncovered.
With such a high proportion of Afghans on welfare, this naturally raises the suspicion that some of the claims that they have made are fraudulent, especially in light of the $9 billion fraud that Somali immigrants have committed in Minnesota. Are the welfare claims made being properly vetted, to make sure they are not claims for help they supposedly provided to nonexistent claimants, made by fraudsters?
“Welfare use rates among Afghan immigrants are so high that one may wonder whether they are engaged in the kind of fraud that has recently embroiled the Somali immigrant community,” Richwine writes.
Richwine writes that should Congress want to cut welfare usage among immigrants, halting legal immigration from high-welfare-use regions like Afghanistan is a starting point….
This makes sense. if Congress really wants to cut welfare payments to immigrants, it should halt immigration from those countries whose citizens have historically had the greatest reliance on welfare programs. Afghanistan is at the top of the list.
Afghans in our country lack the training to participate in an advanced accompany; the skills of those who were formerly interpreters in Afghanistan are no longer needed; as a result, they are fit only for poorly-paid manual labor, which means they will depend mostly on welfare payments. In order to lower welfare payments, the American government should reduce or halt the number of would-be immigrants, such as the Afghans, who, given the low wages they will receive, will consume more of the welfare budget than other immigrants (e.g., Chinese, Hindus, or Europeans), or than our own, poorer citizens.
The State Department is limiting or ending visas for people from about one hundred countries that have produced a large number of welfare-dependent immigrants. This makes sense. It is neither “racist” nor “Islamophobic” to want to limit welfare spending, and to choose to do so by withholding visas for immigrants from countries whose asylum seekers have historically been most dependent on welfare. The Afghans are among those in the U.S. who require the most welfare assistance.
Now if the Afghans insist that they “can’t go back, we will face persecution or death,” then the American government should insist that instead of being relocated to America, a country whose mores and laws are so foreign to Muslims, and where their presence is likely to cause taxpayers billions in welfare payments every year, it would make much more sense to relocate them to Muslim countries in Afghanistan’s neighborhood. Pakistan comes first to mind, then the five “stans” — Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan — where they will be able to fit in among those who share their religion, will more easily learn the local languages, and will find suitable employment for their rudimentary skills, as they could not do so in the United States.
