This claims that 36 states give snap to illegals Camarota's 2024 immigration testimony about U.S. population and labor impacts?

1. How the "36 states" claim emerged — numbers vs. legal eligibility that confuse the story

Analysts report two distinct facts that get conflated into the headline claim: one is a statistical count that 36 states had noncitizens in households that received Food Stamps in FY2022, meaning noncitizens were present in beneficiary households (this is the position in a 2025 report counting 1.5 million noncitizens in Food Stamp recipient households), and the other is the legal framework that undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for SNAP and only certain lawful noncitizens can qualify or can be covered via state-funded programs ^{[1] [2]}. The difference between a noncitizen being present in a household that receives benefits and an undocumented person directly receiving SNAP is crucial; one describes household-level receipt data while the other addresses individual legal eligibility. The available sources underline that conflating those two leads to misleading conclusions about direct benefit eligibility.

2. What the policy sources actually say: six states run state-funded programs, not 36

A policy review shows six states explicitly operate state-funded food assistance programs for noncitizens who are ineligible for federal SNAP because of waiting periods or work history rules: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington. These programs are financed by the states, vary in eligibility and benefit levels, and fill gaps left after federal welfare-law changes; earlier eras saw more states offering such programs before federal restorations narrowed the gaps ^[2]. Multiple analyses and Camarota’s testimony note that some states provide other forms of assistance to noncitizens — Medicaid access for children, school meals, WIC — but these are distinct from state-run SNAP equivalents and differ sharply by state law and practice ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Camarota’s 2024 testimony — what he asserts and what it does not confirm

Steven Camarota’s 2024 testimony frames illegal immigration as imposing fiscal burdens and asserts high levels of welfare use by immigrant households, estimating an increased illegal population and assigning fiscal cost figures, while acknowledging that undocumented people are not direct SNAP recipients and that six states provide state-level food assistance in limited cases. The testimony emphasizes that illegal immigrants can be beneficiaries indirectly through U.S.-born children in mixed-status households and cites state-level differences, but it does not provide independent evidence that 36 states intentionally give SNAP directly to undocumented immigrants; rather it uses household-level data and fiscal estimates to argue broader policy implications ^{[3] [5]}.

4. The data perspective: noncitizen households, mixed-status households, and interpretation pitfalls

Survey- and administrative-based analyses show noncitizen-headed households have higher rates of use of safety-net programs than U.S.-born households and that many noncitizen household members work, but lower incomes and larger family sizes drive program participation. One analysis reports roughly 1.5 million noncitizens in Food Stamp recipient households in FY2022 and that noncitizens appear in recipient households in 36 states; another shows roughly six states maintain state-funded programs for certain noncitizens ^{[6] [1]}. The methodological pitfall arises when household-level presence of noncitizens is equated with direct eligibility or when fiscal claims aggregate disparate benefit streams without clarifying which recipients are documented, lawfully present, or U.S.-born children of undocumented parents ^[4].

5. Verdict, competing agendas, and what’s missing from the public debate

Factually, the precise statement "36 states give SNAP to illegals" is misleading: administrative counts can show noncitizens present in SNAP households in 36 states, but law and program practice limit direct SNAP receipt by undocumented individuals and only six states run state-funded alternatives for some noncitizens. Sources advocating restriction emphasize fiscal costs and mixed-status household impacts (CIS/Camarota), while others focus on legal constraints, child eligibility, and state policy variation; each side frames similar data to different policy ends ^{[3] [2] [1]}. The public debate lacks unified, transparent breakdowns by immigration status, household composition, and state-level program rules; resolving the specific claim requires distinguishing household receipt from individual eligibility and clarifying state program definitions and fiscal accounting ^{[4] [2]}.