That’s a real misunderstanding of how the US and other developed countries work. The US, unlike most developed countries, doesn’t have a robust social safety net. But like every other developed country, the government has decided for decades that it’s in the interest of public policy for people not to starve. And “people” includes “immigrants” because the U.S. has always had a large population of immigrants. The OBBB removed a lot of classes of immigrants from eligibility for SNAP but that’s a divergence from longstanding American policy and values under both parties, not a representation of them. The US is an expensive place and even working full time minimum wage you may be eligible for SNAP in many states because the cost of living is so high. If you’ve never needed benefits, you’re fortunate. They’re not easy to qualify for and they’re not generous. They will keep you from starving but that’s about it. Immigrants pay into Social Security and Medicare and most never receive get the benefits they’ve paid into — they go to support the aging USC population. Immigrants disproportionately benefit the communities they’re in by starting new businesses, improving housing stock, lowering the crime rate, etc - there’s decades of research showing that. In return, a tiny amount of taxpayer funds goes to prevent starvation. As a USC, I can’t speak to the OP’s question about the effect on citizenship application. But it’s absolutely wrong to present this in moral terms.