Poll Results

YES: 8% | NO: 92%

In this Immigration Survey, we asked readers:

“Should illegal immigrants be eligible for Social Security benefits?”

This question addresses a fundamental issue of government responsibility, immigration policy, and entitlement spending. Social Security is one of the largest federal programs in the U.S., funded by payroll taxes from American workers. Whether individuals who entered the country unlawfully should receive benefits from that system remains a deeply divisive question.

Here’s how respondents voted:

• Yes – They Should Be Eligible: 8%
• No – Illegal Immigrants Should Not Receive Benefits: 92%

Why This Matters

The Social Security system was designed to provide retirement income and disability support for American workers who have paid into the system through legal employment. As immigration debates continue, proposals to extend benefits to non-citizens — including those who entered or remain in the country illegally — have sparked significant controversy.

Supporters of extending benefits argue that some undocumented workers pay into the system and deserve access to it. Opponents argue that doing so weakens the system’s integrity and rewards illegal behavior.

Arguments from Those Who Said “No – Illegal Immigrants Should Not Receive Benefits”

• Undermines the Rule of Law:
  Many respondents believe that granting benefits to those who entered the country unlawfully sends the wrong message — that legal status and compliance with immigration law are optional.
• Social Security is Already Under Strain:
  Critics point out that the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to run short of full funding within the next decade. Expanding eligibility to undocumented immigrants could accelerate that shortfall.
• Unfair to Legal Workers:
  Law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants contribute to the system over a lifetime. Many voters feel it is unfair to offer the same benefits to individuals who bypassed the legal process.
• Encourages Further Illegal Immigration:
  Opponents argue that providing federal benefits like Social Security could incentivize more illegal entry, straining public resources and border security.
• Trust and Transparency:
  Many Americans believe Social Security is meant to serve those who built it — not those whose presence violates federal law.

Arguments from Those Who Said “Yes – They Should Be Eligible”

• Many Pay Into the System Already:
  Some undocumented workers use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) and contribute billions annually to Social Security — without being eligible to collect benefits. Supporters argue this is unfair and should be corrected.
• Long-Term Residents Deserve Support:
  Some immigrants have lived and worked in the U.S. for years, contributing to the economy and local communities. In these cases, supporters argue, access to retirement benefits is morally justified.
• Benefit Eligibility Can Be Limited:
  Proponents suggest that eligibility could be restricted to only those who’ve paid into the system for a certain number of years, reducing the risk of abuse.
• Focus on Contributions, Not Status:
  If the system is funded by payroll taxes, some believe it should be tied to work history — not immigration status.
• Promotes Integration:
  Extending limited benefits may help bring undocumented workers into the formal economy and reduce the size of the underground labor market.

Conclusion

According to this poll, an overwhelming majority of respondents oppose extending Social Security benefits to individuals who are in the U.S. illegally. For many, it’s about preserving the integrity of a system funded by legal contributions and reserved for those who followed the rules.

As immigration policy continues to evolve, this debate remains at the intersection of economic sustainability, fairness, and national identity.