In a recent article published on a website called “American Greatness” titled Why Artificial Intelligence Will End the Need for Immigration, author Ian Henderson makes the claim that the growth of automation and AI has a natural result in policy. In his words: “we don’t need more immigrants, we need fewer.” The result of increased automation, he argues, should be “cutting green cards by 50 percent and capping the number of refugees allowed into the country to 50,000 a year.”
Ian, my friend, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Lets tackle the structure of your position piece by piece:
First Point: “Why does the United States — and the West more broadly — encourage and pursue policies that lead to “brain drain” from poorer, developing countries? Why do we continue to take the best people of those nations?”
The United States isn’t abducting these high performers against their will — US Citizenship and Immigration Services receives around 200,000 HB1 applications every year and accept only 85,000. It’s a program that helps lift individuals up to reach their greatest individual potential by getting them access to companies that need these immigrants skills. There is a mutual consent in their application, and the countries acceptance. As a self declared Republican, if you care about liberty, you should be hesitant to place the wants of any state above individual rights.
Leaving these high performers in struggling countries means their talents would go to waste. They would be robbed of the opportunity to work in America, learn in America, then return home and help grow their economies, or send money back to struggling family members- as they see fit.
The HB1 program is mutually beneficial, and could be more beneficial if the United States accepted high performers in greater numbers.
Second Point:“Why do we continue to import cheap foreign labor from developing nations when more and more jobs in America are becoming automated?”
Though a labor shortage is good for American workers who are looking for employment, there are infrastructure developments that will not be possible without low cost labor, regardless of trends in automation. This is happening in construction, agriculture, and is acknowledged even by most of the right side of the political spectrum.We need even the least educated immigrant for their benefit, and for ours. States are even paying to have high and low skill workers relocate, which can cut in both directions depending on whether this need is met, and at what cost. Even just this year we as a country have a record 6.6 Million open jobs — and with automation, I predict that employment opportunities will grow with the wealth technology will bring.
Ian’s argument boils down to a single point: if you’re not here now, we won’t be better off for you coming here.
Sure, Ian is right that “cashiers will go the way of elevator operators” and that robotics can improve many industries, (they should, and that will lead to new opportunities with new technologies) but it is disappointing to see how short Ian’s article sells American ingenuity, free markets, and our ability to continue growth.
Like we have seen time and time again, intelligent people create new industries that employ people — and many of them boosted the economy by getting access through the H-1B Program. The Economic Times notes that “According to the National Foundation for American Policy, more than half of privately-held companies worth USD 1 billion or more in the US had at least one immigrant founder, with many entering into America on an H-1B visa, including the CEOs of both Microsoft and Google.” (source)
If you want to put America First, consider the benefits of more open borders, where the free market and free trade can sort winners and losers much more efficiently than the hack bureaucrats at the USCIS and DHS. President Trump’s biggest policy stumbles since becoming the leader of the free world have been when he has MORE government involved in the process.
The more interesting topic, Ian, and one I’d like to see you follow up with — is a look at the disastrous impact of massive government on ordinary Americans. Take it a step further; if we weren’t hemorrhaging money into unsustainable entitlement programs, the law of supply and demand you mention would decrease or eliminate non-value added applicants to our immigration system. The additional wealth of our population could be used to help the disadvantaged through the creation of shared value, not the coercive forces of government.
The American Greatness you’re seeking is in our continued innovation and the constant injection of new ideas — both through immigration and also advancements in technology. As our job markets continue to tighten, having a flexible immigration policy that encourages greater movement is the only viable option for the United States and other developed nations.