The Medicaid Vote; and Impact of Illegal Immigration

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND REMOVING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM MEDICAID?
The recent medicaid vote in the US Senate, and the impact of illegal immigration; and as we’ve established earlier, on June 30, 2025, the US Senate voted 56-44 against a measure in the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ intended to remove illegal immigrants from Medicaid eligibility. The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, played a procedural role by advising against including this amendment due to its potential violation of the Byrd Rule, which led to significant debate and criticism over the decision’s alignment with public voter sentiment regarding welfare benefits for undocumented immigrants. Well, administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and “able-bodied” individuals who should NOT be on Medicaid.
And among provisions, the House bill would further require states to deny Medicaid to people who can NOT prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently in-eligible.
In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (or simply the CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. And the Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. Therefore, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for “deserving” people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they are NOT freeloading.
THE BURDEN OF WELFARE PROGRAMMES IS NOT A NEW DISCUSSION POINT
Now, I conceded that – from a politicians point of view, there is not a variety of gentle language available to sell the need to decrease dependency through welfare programmes, but I will not go as far as to say that is something that can or should hamstring pursuing stringent measures to reduce those relying on the state. And the reason is that the issues with welfare programmes are well documented in the US, and even other parts of the world. In essence, welfare states generate systematic and often chronic problems such as excessive bureaucracy, soaring costs, and labour market rigidities—that sometimes even threaten to bring the whole state enterprise into disrepute. And we see this with two primary issues from state welfare programs.
First is the issue of unsustainable funding. This is to say that welfare programs can be expensive to administer, and their costs can escalate due to factors like an aging population, increasing demand, and rising healthcare costs. In addition, finding sustainable funding sources for welfare programs can be a major challenge, especially during economic downturns or when there are competing demands on public resources (such as when a government takes in an influx of illegal immigrants that also receive welfare benefits). Then, some welfare systems are also just heavily reliant on economic growth to generate the revenue needed to fund programs, which can then make them vulnerable to economic fluctuations.
The second issue with welfare programmes is the potential for dependency, which is perhaps the most represented argument in light of the medicaid debate. The gist of this argument is that welfare programs can create a disincentive to work, especially if benefits are generous or easily accessible. Meanwhile, long-term reliance on welfare can also create a cycle of dependency, making it difficult for individuals to become self-sufficient. And I should state here that this argument does not account for all citizens indiscriminately, but rather focuses on individuals who are able-bodied but neither work or volunteer to meet the 80 hour a month requirement – so it targets people who just do not want to contribute to society.
Then, in addition to these two issues, I’d say (especially in light of the American context), there is also the issue of corrupt or inefficient bureaucracies; where bureaucratic inefficiencies and administrative challenges can hinder the effective delivery of welfare services. This is why under the Biden-Harris administration, we saw Americans who pay tax be less prioritised for housing benefits over illegal immigrants. So that was a clear case of a failure to prioritise the state’s duty to care for its citizens first, while corrupt practices were adopted to prioritise illegal immigrants in welfare programmes.
But, the purpose behind this is to highlight that welfare programmes have certain innate and re-occurring issues, and that these programmes do not have the great record that we think they do. In fact, about three years ago, we heard GOP senators express continued opposition to Biden’s Build Back Better policy, on the basis that it was creating an expensive social welfare state in the US.
WELFARE SYSTEMS ARE PART OF THE WAR ON THE FAMILY UNIT
Unfortunately, the issues we;ve highlighted are not even the worst of welfare policies, because welfare policies also pose a significant moral hazard, in that they are part of the war on the family unit! More specifically, many welfare programs give greater benefits to unmarried individuals than to a married couple of otherwise identical income. The resulting marriage penalty discourages marriage and rewards single parenthood. Combined marriage penalties across federal and state welfare programs can reach tens of thousands of dollars per year for a given family.
One component of the marriage penalties comes from state-level free or subsidized preschool programs. In addition to a failed track record in providing high-quality preschool education, the majority of government-funded preschool programs also have severe marriage penalties. Marriage is highly beneficial to adults, children, and society as a whole. Therefore, policymakers clearly have ignored the implications of their programs on marriage and, in fact, probably see this as a plausible outcome (during the previous administrations) that made identity politics and feminist ideals central to their policy objectives.
MEANWHILE, DEMOCRAT SENATORS ARE DEFENDING THE WELFARE PROGRAMMES 
Well, as the Senate vote took place, and even after, Democrat senators defend welfare programmes, insisting that any stringent requirements will  hamstring healthcare access for Americans. In fact, Senator Elizabeth Warren, went on record to tell Americans that this will disadvantage their grandmothers using a walker, their niece born with a special condition, or their neighbour’s child who recently broke his arm.
Let’s directly respond to this. First, the Big Beautiful Bill is supposed to close a HUGE tax scheme that several states use to fund their “state” medicaid programs. For example: The state of California imposes taxes on health care providers, one of which is the Managed Care Organization (or MCO) tax; and it is a tax on health plans, particularly those in the Medi-Cal program. This tax is applied at a higher rate to Medicaid business, and then these taxes are used to fund the state’s share of Medicaid costs. Therefore, when the likes of Elizabeth Warren say that “millions” of people will lose coverage, it is because these states do NOT want to use State funds to cover medicaid for all the people who are not eligible under the federal rules, and expect the federal government to keep bearing that high cost.
Secondly, the claim from Senator Elizabeth Warren on 17 million uninsured under the “Big Beautiful Bill” actually inflates the facts. In actual fact, the CBO estimates show that approximately 10.9 million Americans could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, mainly from Medicaid reforms and expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies—not deliberate cuts. Instead, the Big Beautiful Bill targets inefficiencies, like ensuring eligibility, and removing illegal immigrants who do not qualify; as opposed to stripping care from “grandmas” or “kids.” In light of this, here is White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirming a major provision in President Trump’s proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” is the removal of 1.4 million undocumented immigrants from the Medicaid rolls.
But, can I also just highlight that while GOP Senators move away from the language that what they are trying to accomplish through the bill is a cut on federal funding through medicaid, it actually is not a bad thing to explicitly say that because if state funding is inflated, the logical thing is to reduce it to deliberate cuts. In fact, this is logic that even Democrats understand, despite their disingenuous cries about 17 million people losing access to healthcare funding. For instance, at a recent House DOGE Committee hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) played a video of past Democratic Presidents promoting cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse in federal government spending.
So, clearly, even Democratic presidents understand the vision that Trump has for DOGE.
REP. GLENN GROTHMAN: SHOULD PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY GET WELFARE BENEFITS?
But, let’s then proceed to  provoking question asked by Representative Glenn Grothman. He asks: Should People Who Are in the US Illegally Get Welfare Benefits? And before asking this question, he established the US has a willingness to accept immigrants and naturalise them, following due process. He further questions political leadership, including Tim Walz, on what entitlement to illegal immigrants have to remain in the US, and also get welfare benefits. Now, this is a relatively challenging issue in politics because those who engage it never want to do so while appearing inhumane – which is good because politicians should never be divorced from compassion; but, I think it is a relatively easy question to answer.
First, entering a country illegally, even on grounds of hoping to eventually demand asylum is a crime. It means you chose to place yourself above the law of that nation, but still demand lawful regard from its government. Secondly, it is important to recognise the fact that not all people who enter a country illegally do so with innocent intentions. This is why America has suffered an influx of crime, and fentanyl poisoning during the Biden-Harris period – while gangs hijacked buildings and over 300,000 trafficked children went missing. Therefore, the law cannot afford to give a presumption of innocence to people who break the law to enter a country – which Democrats persistently do.
Then secondly, if you entered a country illegally, you are at odds with the government and laws aimed at ensuring civility, and thus should not be rewarded with privileges and benefits. This creates bad precedent, that does not further disincentivise illegal immigration because you will still have it easy as an illegal immigrant anyways.
Then thirdly, welfare benefits are not arbitrarily funded by anonymous billionaire donors: this is part of the money the state receives through taxes for “public service”. Therefore, to expand the beneficiary pool of those receiving welfare, directly translates to a financial burden on legal citizens – some of whom do not even benefit from welfare programmes. Therefore, extending welfare to illegal immigrants not only undermines law and order but further undermines a state’s responsibility to consider the best interests of its citizens first, before others. Which is not ot say that countries should completely close of borders to immigrants, it is to say they should insist on it  being done legally, while not compromising its capacity to fulfil its duty to care for its citizens first, before extending that to others. But here’s the referenced excerpt where Representative Glenn Grothman posed the question on welfare benefits and illegal immigrants.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso