Several data points are conveniently omitted from the reporting in that story; thus the story presents an incomplete picture, yet it disingenuously and tacitly bids readers to form a view -- usually one that comports with the author's; however, in this case, because the WashEx article's author doesn't present his view (the article is presumably presented as news/information, not as an editorial/column), it's the CIS' view (to the extent the article presents it) the reader is bid to concur with -- based on the information presented. For example, omitted is information needed to know:

- What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are citizen households?
- X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are natural-born citizen households --> B

- What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are naturalized citizen households
- X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are naturalized citizen households --> C

Careful readers will observe that the report tells readers that "4,684,784 million non-citizen households" receive welfare, thus allowing one to answer the the following question:

- What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are non-citizen?
- X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are non-citizen households --> N

Were the article to provide cardinal quantities for the other classes noted in the charts, readers could at least calculate B, C and so on....But the article doesn't share that information, thus forcing readers to find it themselves. Based on what I know about that

publication's likely reader base, the

odds of that are, in my estimation, fairly low.

Does the CIS' report include that information? I suspect it does -- the CIS tends to "do right" in terms of disclosing its methodology; however

its analyses/reports are rarely, if ever, dispassionately presented (I'm aware of only one such instance), thus requiring readers to "dig deep" to determine whether the conclusions/inferences the CIS articulates

follow soundly/cogently from the premises and data presented -- but I suspect too that the CIS' report doesn't present snazzy charts that comprehensively highlight the full nature of the matter.

With whatever be the value of "X" in the above equations, one can then obtain a full picture of the scale and scope of the problem using the following model:

- B x .35 x # of welfare-receiving household --> share of welfare-receiving household that are natural born citizen households.
- N x .63 x # of welfare-receiving households --> share of welfare-receiving household that are non-citizen households.
- C x .50 x # of welfare-receiving households --> share of welfare-receiving household that are naturalized citizen households.

In light of the incomplete presentation found in the Washington Examiner's article, it is, AFAIC, good for little other than correctly answering a "Trivial Pursuit" question.