WHO should pay to help migrants?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Feb 07, 2025

This week, as Catholic analysts of various stripe debate the Trump crackdown on immigration, I have noticed a frequent claim that the United States, as “the richest nation on earth,” can easily afford to help those who are most in need.

Leaving aside the debates about who is most in need, and how we might best help them, and even the more interesting discussion of the ordo amoris, I want to concentrate on the other premise in that argument. Is the United States the richest nation on earth?

If the reference is to the US government, then the answer is No. Uncle Sam has enormous resources, and the federal budget is promethean. But don’t forget the the federal debt, which is at $36 trillion and counting. That debt is roughly six times what the federal government will spend this year, or, more ominously, nine times what the government will take in as revenue.

Any accurate measure of wealth includes debts as well as assets. By that ordinary standard the US government is poor: spending money it does not have, running a budget it cannot afford. And since the current debate over immigration is primarily a debate about the policies of the federal government, the argument that the US government is the “richest nation on earth” cannot stand.

But maybe those who introduce that argument are referring not to the government, but to the American people. Most of us do live in comfort, with more assets than obligations (especially if you do not include the $300,000 that the average taxpayer owes as his share in the federal debt). So you might plausibly argue that we—you and I, ordinary people, not government agencies—can afford to do something to help poor migrants seeking a better life.

But again, the focus of the current debate is on what our federal government should do. A debate on what we should do, through our own private efforts, would be a much healthier discussion.

Within the Catholic Church in the US, this month’s debate topic is the likely withdrawal of federal support for the immigration programs administered by the American bishops. That debate would be transformed entirely, and sharpened considerably, if the US bishops’ conference announced that it would henceforth decline government contracts, and seek to replace the $100 million that it has been receiving annually from Uncle Sam with free-will offerings from the Catholic laity. Then the bishops’ programs would be clear manifestations of Christian charity, not the fulfillment of political policies.

The challenge, of course, would be to persuade the faithful Catholics who fill the pews on Sundays to pony up $100 million—over and above their current donations to the Church—to ensure the continuation of the bishops’ immigration programs. If our bishops cannot convince their own people to foot the bill, it is downright uncharitable to expect continued support from our debt-ridden government.