Day 6 - O'Keefe - the money argument

Day 6 – O’Keefe – $ + $

Jesus was crucified between two thieves, and the opponents of immigration are generally very interested in money.  What will it cost the Maryland taxpayer to welcome and educate students in our midst whose parents had the guts to move here – with or without documentation?

A thinktank at UMBC (that’s the University of Maryland Baltimore County) issued a policy paper recently estimating the benefits we will get from encouraging bright students to finish college.  They estimate that the return on the state’s investment (estimated at $3.5 million annually to start) will be about $66 million per class over the lifetime of these Dreamers.

But let’s back up a step.  Suppose, just for the moment for the sake of the debate, that helping these kids had a cost without a huge payoff?  Four thoughts:

1. Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to discern what God asks of us, and we notice that God has asked us to welcome immigrants (Matthew 25), the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

2.  Same point, slightly revised. Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to help good people in real need, and we come to believe that many immigrants fit that description, the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

3.  Recall the Irish argument.  The arguments made about the costs associated with Latino immigration were all made about the Irish in the middle of the 19^th century.  While the Irish were fleeing from famine and poverty, and for a generation after the disaster, they (we) were a burden, including an economic burden.  Crime went up with the Irish; drinking and hooliganism in the streets went up with the Irish; welfare costs went up with the Irish; health care costs went up with the Irish.  I admit freely that poor relief costs in the 19^th century were less comprehensive than health and welfare benefits today, but the argument doesn’t change.  The point is, since then, we Irish have proved ourselves to be a huge benefit to the nation, worth the trouble we caused.

4.  The United States is a shrinking country, except for immigration.  Average family size for people born in the USA is already disastrously below replacement level.  So Social Security, which is based on a growing population, is certain to fail unless we permit – encourage! – robust immigration.  Assuming for the moment that all of Mr. Parrott’s and his friends’ numbers are right, and immigration is a financial drain (I don’t accept it, but assume for the moment), what costs in their whiny list come close to balancing off the financial catastrophe of destroying Social Security?

Maryland taxpayers have already invested in these students for at least five years.  Now, we are two years away from cashing in on the investment when they enter our workforce with a college degree.  Will we help for the last two years?  Justice and the Bible and finance agree: of course we should!