India’s absence from USA’s welfare receiver list says more than what the numbers show: Indian immigrants have been giving back a lot to American economy

Recently, US President Donald Trump shared a chart on immigrant welfare usage in the United States. It quickly sparked debate. The chart showed the proportion of immigrant households receiving government assistance, such as food stamps, healthcare, or housing aid. Immigrants from several nations, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and others, were highlighted. However, one country was conspicuously absent: India.

At first glance, this omission might seem incidental. It is not. In fact, India’s absence is the most telling detail in the entire chart. The data do not measure population size or migration volume, but they highlight welfare dependence. India’s non-appearance reflects a consistent economic pattern that Indian immigrants in the United States, as a group, rely far less on government assistance than many other immigrant communities. This absence is not a statistical gap but a window into a deeper economic reality about how Indian immigrants engage with, contribute to, and sustain the American economy.

What the welfare chart actually measures

The welfare chart shared online measures the percentage of immigrant households in the United States that receive at least one form of government assistance. This assistance typically includes programmes such as SNAP (food stamps), Medicaid, housing subsidies, or limited cash aid. Crucially, the unit of measurement is the household, not individual members. It means that if even one family member receives a benefit, the household is counted. Therefore, the chart is an economic indicator, not a judgment on culture, character, or intent. Such datasets are frequently used in US immigration debates because they help policymakers assess fiscal impact. How different migration streams affect public resources, tax systems, and long-term economic sustainability.

India’s absence: A data point, not a coincidence

The countries that appeared on the charts are not there because of population size, but their usage rates are high enough to warrant attention. The chart highlights immigrant groups where a significant share of households relies on government assistance, making their fiscal footprint visible in policy discussions. This list includes Bangladesh(54.8%), Pakistan (40.2%), Nepal (34.8%), China (32.9%), Israel/Palestine (25.9%), Ukraine (42.7%), and Asia (not elsewhere classified/not specified)(38.8%). The absence of India is not oversight but an indicator of the opposite trend. 

Indian immigrant households consistently fall at the lower end of welfare usage in the United States, placing them outside the high-dependence bracket that such charts are designed to showcase. The primary reason for this divergence lies in income and employment patterns. Indian immigrants are far more likely to be employed in professional, high-paying sectors, reducing the need for public assistance. To understand why India does not feature alongside high-dependency immigrant groups, it is necessary to examine income levels and the economic profile of Indian-American households. 

Incomes and taxes: Indian-Americans as net contributors in USA

The best explanation for why Indian immigrants remain largely absent from welfare-dependence charts is income data. According to the Pew Research Centre, around 5.2 million people in the US identified as Indian in 2023. Indian-American households have the highest median income among all the major immigrant and ethnic groups in the United States. In 2023, Indian-headed households had a median annual income of more than $150,000, well above both the national and immigrant averages.

In contrast to the US national median, the median household income for Asian-American households was approximately $105,600. This income difference reflects a fundamental economic situation that is not marginal. In addition to being financially independent, Indian-Americans make disproportionately larger contributions to local, state, and federal taxes due to their higher household earnings.

The income advantage directly explains lower welfare reliance. Households with stable income rarely need food assistance, housing subsidies, or public healthcare support. In financial terms, Indian-American households contribute more to the system than they take out. Their economic profile shows that when migrants arrive with skills, education, and employability, public resource dependence naturally declines.

Welfare dependence compared: Indians vs high-dependency groups in USA

A comparison with countries that feature prominently on welfare-dependence charts helps place India’s absence in context. Immigrant households from Bangladesh and Pakistan, for instance, show welfare usage rates ranging between 40 and 55 per cent, meaning nearly half or more than half of households receive some form of government assistance. Similar patterns are visible across South Asian countries, where dependence levels often climb even higher, sometimes above 60-70%.

It is essential to clarify that welfare usage is not inherently wrong. Governments provide assistance to provide economic stability during economic hardship, displacement or transitional phases. However, from a policy perspective, sustained high welfare reliance represents a net cost to the public system, funded by taxpayers.

This is where the contrast with Indian immigrants becomes significant. Indian-American households, with high employment rates and strong earnings, rely far less on public assistance while contributing heavily through taxes. In financial terms, they consistently emerge as net contributors, whereas high-dependency groups impose a greater long-term demand on public resources.

What India’s absence really tells the United States

India’s absence from immigrant welfare-dependence charts is not symbolic, accidental, or politically convenient. It is the outcome of a measurable economic reality. As a group, Indian immigrants earn more and rely less on public assistance and contribute more in taxes than most other immigrant communities in the United States. That distinction matters in a policy environment where immigration is increasingly scrutinised through the lens of fiscal sustainability.

This comparison is not about nationality or cultural pride. It is about how immigration systems shape outcomes. Skill-based migration pathways reward education, employability, and self-reliance, producing communities that integrate quickly and strengthen the host economy. Welfare-heavy migration streams, often driven by humanitarian or low-skill entry routes, create a different set of economic pressures.

If immigration is to be evaluated honestly, it must be judged not by sentiment but by impact. On that metric, Indian immigrants stand out as a model of net contribution. Their absence from welfare charts tells a simple but powerful story: when immigration policy prioritises skills and economic participation, it benefits both migrants and the nation that receives them.