Hmm, which will be less neoliberal?
Also, FYI, every single Republican and Democratic president since Carter has publicly and vocally shilled for immigration.
The concentration camps to funnel desperate refugees into ghettoes across Europe? The agreement with Turkey that's been totally unenforced? The completely baseless accusations of gunning down widdle babies at sea?
Those can be readily explained by the need both to deflect populist rage at the blatantly pro-immigration European governments.
This. We have some retards, ledditors, and Tumblrinas floating around here, plus Holla Forumsack trolls.
Opposing mass immigration and opposing capitalists are not mutually exclusive. Supporting scabs and opposing the capitalists who create them are mutually exclusive.
Staunch the hemorrhaging, THEN bandage the wound.
Flooding Europe with refugees, and forcing people to stay in warzones, are not the only choices. There is the third choice of rich European workers subsidizing refugees in (geographically/economically/culturally) closer countries, as well as less wartorn areas of their home country. Which means supporting more refugees with the same money, keeping them close enough to stop their wars faster then rebuild their countries sooner after that, and not fucking over Europe.
Let go of the neoliberal false dichotomy.
Because we earn more, so we're vulnerable to scabs. They earn less, so they're vulnerable to being used as scabs unless we illegalize mass immigration.
Because that's a completely irrelevant minority compared to the infinite flood intended to destroy all unionization.
This meme is incredibly misleading for a number of reasons:
• Illegal immigration is a far, FAR smaller issue than legal immigration.
• Not all immigration through the Mexican border is by Mexicans, and not all Mexican immigration is via the land border.
• Many of these figures, including all of them in the article you linked, aren't actually for incoming immigration, but for immigrant population.
• Not in the article you linked, but there is a commonly co-occurring meme positing that there was substantial emigration back to Mexico. Such suppositions were based on decreasing migrant population estimates, which could also be explained in whole or part by migrants dying or being more evasive.
• There actually was a brief decrease in immigration rates, but it was confined entirely to the nadir of the recession. Neither Bush nor Obama's immigration control "policy" had anything to do with it.
• After the US economy recovered somewhat, immigration picked back up, and is now at its highest level ever, even per-capita.
Ameriburger here, will this reach beyond Golden Dawn to get some actual porkies (cops, politicians, corporations) who were backing them, or are they just going to be the fall guys?