President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers about $1,600 a year per immigrant.

As Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration is set to roll out a plan in the next month that bars foreign nationals who need government welfare in order to live from resettling in the U.S. Such a ban on welfare importation through immigration has been eyed by the Trump White House since February.

Such a plan would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration controls are not implemented.

The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.

Harvard economist: US operating world's "largest anti-poverty program" w/ immigration & making Americans pay for it. https://t.co/9zLa6cORJg — John Binder 👽 (@JxhnBinder) October 30, 2017

Trump’s seeking to end the “public charge” that mass legal immigration from mostly the poor and developing world would translate to an annual tax cut for American taxpayers.

Illegal and legal immigrant-headed households use nearly 60 percent more taxpayer-funded food stamps than households headed by native born Americans, a study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) revealed in 2016.

Harvard University economist George Borjas says the country’s decades of importation of more than 1.5 million legal immigrants every year is the world’s “largest anti-poverty program” that comes at the expense of American citizens who are forced to subsidize the cost.

“Since 1965, we have admitted a lot of low-skilled immigrants, and one way to view that policy is that we were running basically the largest anti-poverty program in the world. That is actually not a bad thing at all,” Borjas said in an interview last year. “Except someone is going to have to pay the cost for that.”