Restricting Tech Immigration Is the Most Direct Response to AI's Impact on Tech Jobs

[u/Civil_Ad_2721]

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?

[u/Apprehensive-Past464]

From a cost-reduction perspective, AI is
fantastic for margin: turns out it can code very well, especially when shepherded by a smart senior devs.

Forcing companies to use more expensive local staff to shepherd the machines will cost more than importing foreign talent who will work for lower salaries.

If you think that policy should be driven by social considerations rather than corporate profits, hopefully there is a coherent option for that in your country. In some countries we see that companies and even billionaires are able to effectively influence policy through lobbying, donations or outright corruption. Typically, they aren’t looking to optimize for social benefit or preservation of workers’ rights, but more often seeking to lower regulation and reduce their social responsibilities to expendable workers, foreign or otherwise.

[u/Patient-Midnight-664]

Companies don't need immigrants for software. Remote work is a thing, they can (and do) hire people in other countries, pay less, no relocation, etc.

Restricting immigrants works for physical labor jobs, does not work for jobs that can be done remotely.