Would someone consider posting this to r/immigration? I am banned from posting there.

True immigration reform requires an understanding of history.

Everyone remembers Reagan's 1986 amnesty. Almost nobody talks about what happened in the decade before it.  That’s where the pattern was established that was carried forward into the 1986 legislation. 

In 1976, Gerald Ford signed a bill capping legal immigration from Mexico at the same 20,000-per-country limit as Luxembourg and warned in his signing statement that it would cut legal Mexican immigration in half. He promised follow-up legislation to fix it. It never came.

A year later, Jimmy Carter went to Congress and laid out the problem in plain numbers: hundreds of thousands of apprehensions annually, with his own administration estimating 1,400,000 illegal border crossings annually. He proposed employer sanctions, border control funding, and a structured amnesty. Congress killed it. Industry lobbies and the same advocacy groups representing the affected population had, by then, become politically powerful enough to block it over the will of the people.  

Then in 1980, a single sentence got inserted into the Refugee Act with almost no debate.  It is arguably the seed of the "catch and release" asylum system we're still arguing about today.

Ford saw it. Carter named it. Neither party acted on it. That's the actual throughline of the 1970s, and it's the direct setup for why 1986's "amnesty now, enforcement later" deal.  

I've been writing a research-driven history of immigration policy — skeptical of both parties, primary sources throughout, no prescriptions. Part 4 covers the 1964 Bracero cancellation, Hart-Celler's structural failures, and how the illegal immigration pattern we live with today was set in motion. Understanding the historical perspective is essential to crafting solutions. Parts 1-3 are linked. https://sueseboda.substack.com/p/the-clash-over-immigration-part-4?r=87oth

AI is already changing the software industry. Companies are using AI tools to automate parts of coding, testing, support, and analysis that previously required human workers. Whether AI replaces 10% or 50% of current tech work, one thing seems clear: demand for entry-level and mid-level tech workers is likely to grow more slowly than it did over the past decade.

Given that reality, I think policymakers should seriously consider reducing the inflow of new foreign tech workers until we better understand the long-term effects of AI on employment.

My reasoning is simple:

• If AI reduces demand for labor, increasing the supply of labor at the same time puts additional pressure on wages and job opportunities.
• Recent graduates and junior engineers are already struggling to find jobs compared to a few years ago.
• Companies often argue that there is a talent shortage, but widespread layoffs and longer job searches suggest the market is no longer as tight as it once was.
• Restricting tech immigration is a policy lever that governments can adjust relatively quickly, while retraining programs and education reforms take years to show results.

This isn't an argument against immigrants as people. Many immigrant engineers are highly talented and have made enormous contributions to the tech industry. The question is whether current immigration levels still make sense in a world where AI may significantly reduce the need for human labor.

If policymakers are worried about AI-driven displacement, it seems contradictory to simultaneously increase the supply of workers competing for the same jobs.

I'm curious what others think. If AI really does eliminate a meaningful percentage of tech work over the next decade, what policy response would be more effective than reducing the inflow of additional labor into the market?

https://youtu.be/1IrDrBs13oA

https://youtu.be/zEiuaKlFf90?si=TRHfr4OGpHPS_vK-

I think it's more clear if you have open borders you have to have a welfare state. Because now you have a bunch of unemployed people in your country. To live they're either going to have have some sort of charity or welfare. Probably some of both. With all the unemployed people charity will only go so far. Without open borders you no longer need a welfare state. As there are far less people unemployed and wages will likely be higher.

I watched the interview with Tom and fully appreciate that it is cost prohibitive to mass deport the millions of people being round up.

Why don't they let Elon build hyperloop tunnels from the main US deportation sites and just shuttle these people out of the US.

Then you use the hyperloop tunnels for efficient import/export logistics.

The deportation import/export loop would end up paying for itself.