If you assume things stay the same but we throw open the borders, of course that would happen. If you basically say to the world "hey, come live over here, we'll pay for everything" then it shouldn't be a surprise if a few billion people take you up on the offer. But if it's clear that there's no public assistance, housing is expensive, jobs only pay so much unless you've got skills that are in demand, and the seasonal cycle can be brutal if you're not adequately prepared (I wouldn't want to be homeless in Minnesota in February, for example). The only issue would be whether the government of the day would actually enforce the "no public assistance" part of the "come here and work if you want to" invitation. If so they would be accused of being heartless sooner or later (probably after the first migrant froze to death rather than moving south); if not then the free-for-all becomes very expensive for those footing the bill.
No. No public assistance for non-citizens. You come here illegally because you think America is a Utopia and a land of opportunity for jobs, then, you work. Period. You want the perks, privileges, and safety nets afforded to American citizens? Become one. Even if it takes more time and money than you'd personally like to invest.
Good luck with getting the churches of America to take care of every single person in this country currently on welfare...
That may have been because more people were Christians back then. More people were willing to help others. We're less Christian now, and those that are Christian simply cannot help everybody that needs is. That, and many unbelievers would be reluctant to accept help from Christians because they know we aren't helping them merely to be kind. We do it in hopes of proselytizing. Most unbelievers don't want to be preached at.
Fewer Christians back then. Serving others in order to proseletyze? That isnt Christian. I have faith in the true church.
Well, that's great. I'm right, however. We don't help the poor simply because it's kind to do and we just want to help. We do it to "show the love of Jesus." Is that not proselytizing? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, by the way. Just pointing out we do have a motive when we help others.
You don't do kind act to "show" the Love of Jesus. You do kind act to BE the Love of Jesus. Quite a difference. I open a door for a lady because I was taught to do so. Not to show my father was a gentleman.
Whether it's "show the love of Jesus," or "be the love of Jesus," the point is we do it because we hope by doing kind things unbelievers will "come to Jesus." Again, not saying that's a bad thing. But, again, we have a motive for our kindness. It isn't just done randomly or "because."
There's no such thing as having a motive for witnessing. Door knockers have a poor record when it comes to witnessing because of "motive"
I think your earlier comment that non-believers don't want to be preached at is fair enough. If I'm only helping someone out because it creates a moral obligation on their part to hear my evangelistic waffle then everything is wrong on so many levels. If I'm helping people so they see the love of Christ in me there's nothing wrong with that at all. If people don't want to be helped because they might have to face some awkward questions even if I don't speak a word then nobody is forcing them to accept the help. But why those same people would want help from the government would remain a mystery.
The problem with the safety nets sponsored by the government is that it treats the workshy American with kid gloves while ignoring the immigrant who works hard and pays taxes. Sadly "no taxation without representation" got lost somewhere between Boston and Washington.
But is this even really an issue? Sure there are anecdotes and incidences of those essentially not choosing to work, but more and more it seems like it's a political narrative. Also, what amount of fraud would you support in social safety net before you declare it broken?
My concern with safety nets is the behaviors they encourage rather than necessarily looking to shut down an entire system because a few people take advantage of it. The actual amount of fraud is inevitably impossible to measure so about all we can do is take guesstimates and I suspect few of the bodies that would make a guesstimate with any useful information would come up with a figure free from any political leaning. My experience of the welfare system in the UK was that it looked as if it were designed to stop people from working. If you were an unemployed bricklayer and were trying to find another job laying bricks I'm sure it was great, but if you tried to do much to help yourself it pretty much shut you out. When the government was producing leaflets indicating how people would be better off in work you know something is badly wrong, and when even the government's examples show someone better off by the equivalent of about $40/week by taking a job (while not dwelling too much on the fact that the $40 would take 40 hours of work plus travel time to acquire and any incidental expenses associated with working would come out of it) you know something is askew. Where we see the political divide between "immigrants come here and take all the jobs" against "the immigrants do the jobs locals don't want to do" there seems to be a common theme between the two. And somewhere in the midst of it all is a divide between one possible issue of less scrupulous employers hiring illegals because they are cheaper and don't ask questions, and employers merely choosing immigrants because they are willing to work for a wage the employer can afford. There's probably a related discussion about what, if any, role the state should play in providing welfare but I'm not sure it's relevant to this thread.