Rep. Randy Fine’s proposed No Welfare for Non-Citizens Act aims to prohibit all federal welfare benefits for non-citizens, including both legal and illegal immigrants. Introduced in the House of Representatives, this bill addresses long-standing concerns about taxpayer-funded aid exclusively benefiting American citizens. As Fine noted, “People should not be coming to America and then asking our children and grandchildren to go into debt to give them free stuff.”
The legislation responds directly to financial projections from Fine, claiming that the federal government could spend $177 billion on welfare benefits for non-citizens over the next decade. This figure has raised alarms about the nation’s economic burden, particularly in light of the ongoing $38 trillion national debt. “Americans are being robbed,” Fine asserted. “That is insane, it is immoral, and it must stop.” His strong language reflects a growing anxiety among many citizens about the financial implications of immigration policies.
The No Welfare for Non-Citizens Act consists of two main components: first, it would end eligibility for all federal welfare programs for non-citizens, including Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and housing assistance. Secondly, it aims to close what Fine terms “Clinton-era loopholes” that currently allow lawful permanent residents and some visa holders access to certain benefits. This proposed tightening of welfare eligibility rules marks a significant shift in how the government would allocate resources.
The bill is positioned within a wider movement in Congress focused on reducing welfare access among non-citizens. Currently, about 2.6 million non-citizen households utilize some form of public assistance. Advocates of Fine’s bill point toward data showing that high rates of welfare access by immigrants put additional strain on services designed for citizens and may incentivize illegal migration.
Critics often counter that many immigrants contribute significantly through taxes but receive limited public benefits. Fine contests this perspective. “This isn’t about contributions,” he explained. Instead, it centers on who is entitled to the benefits provided by American taxpayers. His assertion resonates deeply with supporters who believe that welfare should be reserved for citizens.
Although the proposal has potential co-sponsors in the Senate and aligns with the nationalistic, enforcement-first agenda of some Republican lawmakers, its future remains precarious in a divided Congress. Both the Senate and the White House’s positions on the legislation remain uncertain. Despite these challenges, Fine’s advocacy reveals a clear intention to redefine the social contract between the government and its citizens, emphasizing that existing welfare programs should be protected for American taxpayers alone.
In a recent Q&A with constituents, Fine reiterated his commitment, stating, “These benefits were never meant to go to the whole world. They are for our citizens, and for our future.” This viewpoint captures the rationale behind the bill: to prioritize American citizens’ needs. As the debate unfolds, Fine’s proposal could influence future discussions on immigration reform and welfare policy, particularly as public concern over these topics continues to rise. A Gallup poll indicated that 60% of voters view immigration as a critical issue ahead of the next election, signaling that legislative changes may be on the horizon.
"*" indicates required fields
