Nonsense. This definition and all the subsequent text following it would also describe Fascism, Corporatism, Communism, and even Nazism.
You desperately need education on what socialism is. I will start with a dictionary definition:|
Definition of SOCIALISM
- : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
- a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state- : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
So when people scream about "we can't afford" these immigrants, they are arguing that the government entitlements are being spread too thin.
More utter and unmitigated garbage. In no way have I seen anyone say anything of the sort, that government entitlements would be spread 'too thin'. In fact, the argument 'we cannot afford them' is one that can be made without any prediliction to, or endorsement of, entitlements.
Example: I receive no entitlements. I have decided I cannot afford a new car. I am in no way stating that I wish to receive entitlements, or that I endorse them, by stating the financial fact I cannot afford a car.
Your primary premise -- that one would favor 'socialism' by correctly stating we cannot afford new government-dependent citizens, simply does not stand on it's merits -- as I demonstrated, by analogy, above. It is sheer and unreserved balderdash.
Please explain how Socialism (what we have now - ex. Obamacare) is not A (the government) saying they want to help B (the uninsured) by forcing money from C (you and I)?