Foreign-Born Workers Filled Most New U.S. Jobs Since 2020, Reports Say, As Welfare And Labor Concerns Intensify

Employment and policy reports say foreign-born workers have captured most net job growth since early 2020, while separate welfare-use claims and recent gender-based hiring data have fueled debate over immigration, wages and public assistance.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

New labor and policy claims are intensifying debate over immigration, employment and welfare use after reports said foreign-born workers have accounted for most net U.S. job growth since early 2020 while also making up a large share of some public-assistance caseloads.

According to Layoff Hedge, about four out of every five new U.S. jobs since early 2020 have gone to people born outside the United States. The group said in a post on X that the latest May employment data showed 3.8 million additional foreign-born workers compared with 1.1 million additional native-born workers.

“~8 of every 10 new American jobs since early 2020 went to someone born outside the country,” Layoff Hedge wrote. “Our March graphic went viral. This is the latest for May data. Down from 9/10. Still high. +3.8M foreign-born. +1.1M native-born. 19.2% of the total workforce is foreign-born.”

In another post, Layoff Hedge said the United States has “3X more immigrants than any other country on earth” and that one in six immigrants worldwide lives in the U.S.

“No other major developed nation comes close,” the group wrote. “The outcome is clear: the U.S. absorbs a disproportionate share of global migration & ~9/10 new jobs go to them right now.”

The labor-market claims come alongside welfare-use figures promoted by the White Papers Policy Institute, which said in a social media post that large shares of several foreign-born populations from Central and South America and the Caribbean rely on welfare.

“We have been the most generous country in the world, to our detriment,” the group wrote.

The organization claimed that 25% of all Mexicans live in the United States and that 70% rely on welfare. It also claimed that about 10% of Guatemalans live in the U.S. and that 77% are on welfare; that 12% of Nicaraguans live in the U.S. and 75% rely on welfare; and that 12% of Haitians live in the U.S. and 53% rely on welfare.

The debate over employment distribution has also expanded beyond immigration. Oregon Public Broadcasting reported in April that women accounted for about 94% of net U.S. employment growth since the start of 2025.

OPB said women held about 40% of U.S. jobs in the mid-1970s, excluding farm work and self-employment. By the early 2000s, women’s share had risen to just under half and has remained near that level since, crossing 50% only a few times, including during the Great Recession, just before COVID-19 and again recently.

“That parity masks the significant gains women have made in the labor market recently,” OPB reported. “Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump’s second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. That’s nearly 17 times as many jobs filled by women as by men.”

The combined data points have sharpened arguments over whether immigration levels are affecting job access, wage growth and welfare spending. Critics argue that high levels of immigration increase labor competition, suppress wages and shift public costs onto taxpayers through benefit programs. Others argue that foreign-born workers fill labor shortages and support economic growth, while welfare-use figures can vary depending on legal status, household structure, income level and program eligibility.

The submitted reports did not include federal labor-force tables, government welfare enrollment records or independent verification of the social media claims. But the figures cited by Layoff Hedge, White Papers Policy Institute and OPB have become part of a larger political fight over who is benefiting from job growth and who is bearing the costs of immigration and public assistance.

The issue is likely to remain central in debates over labor policy, immigration enforcement and welfare eligibility as lawmakers weigh how job growth is distributed across native-born workers, foreign-born workers, men, women and households receiving taxpayer-funded support.