Could AI Become a Substitute for Immigration? The Stakes Are Higher Than We Think

California Governor Gavin Newsom's recent veto of SB-1047, a bill designed to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) companies, has put the state at the center of a much larger debate: how do we regulate AI in a way that ensures its benefits are shared broadly, without deepening existing economic divides? Newsom's decision raises the stakes, as AI reshapes economies and industries. The real question is no longer whether we should regulate AI, but how to do so effectively.

We have seen this before. Globalization, while fueling economic growth, also caused widespread job losses in key industries, especially in manufacturing. This disruption led to deep resentment in regions hit hardest by the loss of well-paying jobs, fueling political realignments and the rise of populist, radical-right movements. Now AI, while different in some of its mechanics, has the potential to similarly upend labor markets and exacerbate economic inequality. If we don't manage this technological shift carefully, AI could further widen the gap between winners and losers, heightening political tensions.

AI's potential for political upheaval goes beyond changing jobs and wages. Just recently, Quebec's Parti Québécois (PQ) proposedreplacing immigrant labor with automation and robotics to address labor shortages, a move that could limit immigration and appeal to nativist sentiments. This "robots-over-immigrants" approach is already being voiced in places like Japan and Quebec, and there are reasons to think it could catch on elsewhere—including the US. If the Republican Party, for example, embraced AI as a substitute for immigrant labor, it might appeal to voters concerned with job losses and/or cultural change. Such a stance would be an explosive development in AI's trajectory, framing the technology as a tool for isolationist policies and further politicizing the debate.

Our research, involving over 6,000 respondents from the U.S. and Canada, reveals that public opinion on AI is already divided. A larger group of people—whom we call "Substituters"—is deeply concerned that AI will replace human jobs, drive down wages, and increase inequality. This group is worried that companies will benefit while workers get left behind. 

On the other side, an only slightly smaller group—"Complementers"—believes that AI can actually enhance workers' skills and drive economic growth. They argue that rather than holding back AI, we should focus on helping workers adapt to these new technologies through retraining and education.

These differing perspectives are not just economic—they are political. In the U.S., opinions on AI are becoming increasingly tied to partisan identities. Substituters are more likely to align with the Republican Party, advocating for policies aimed at preserving jobs. Complementers, meanwhile, tend to favor the Democratic Party's emphasis on education, skill development, and adaptation to AI-driven economic changes.

As AI transforms labor markets, its political implications are starting to look like those of globalization. In our most recent paper, conditionally accepted at the American Journal of Political Science, we find that across both the U.S. and Canada, people are generally more supportive of AI than globalization, viewing AI as less threatening. However, public support for AI diminishes when it is linked to job losses, suggesting that people expect technological change to come with economic benefits, not costs.

In the US, AI is already showing signs of becoming politicized. Democrats are generally optimistic about AI, even when it involves job displacement, while Republicans are more skeptical when AI threatens employment. These partisan divides, though not yet entrenched, suggest that AI could become a polarizing issue, much like globalization, trade, and immigration.

If Republican political leaders embrace AI as a substitute for immigrant labor, as the Parti Québécois has suggested, we could see this technology become a polarizing, populist tool. Politicians might start advocating for policies that use robots to limit immigration, transforming AI into a battleground over cultural and economic anxieties. This would mark a dramatic escalation of the AI debate, pushing it to the heart of American politics with far-reaching consequences.

The future of AI is not set in stone. Policymakers have a narrow window of opportunity to address public concerns and shape a future where AI benefits society as a whole. This means more than just generic calls for regulation—it requires targeted measures that address the most pressing concerns without stifling innovation.

Redistributive measures like reskilling programs and education investments will be critical in ensuring that AI's benefits are shared equitably. AI will undoubtedly change the nature of work, but that does not mean it must lead to mass unemployment or new forms of inequality. By preparing workers for new roles that AI creates or enhances, governments can help reduce the fear of job displacement. At the same time, education investments are key. AI will reshape industries in unpredictable ways, and workers who can adapt will be in the best position to thrive.

Ignoring the risks posed by AI could lead to political realignments that mirror those seen during the backlash against globalization. By proactively addressing the concerns of those who feel left behind by AI, governments can help steer society toward a future where technological progress drives shared prosperity rather than political division.

Interested in subscribing to receive LCSSP's latest updates?

If you are external to Caltech, fill out this form.

If you are on the Caltech network, use these links to subscribe: LCSSP Mailing List, LCSSP BioPolicy Initiative, and LCSSP Democracy Mailing List.

For help or questions, please reach out to [email protected]!