>

That was an excellent article.  No where in it does there say there's been a decline in jobs overall (because there hasn't,) and at most robotics has had a .2% impact on the employment to population ratio in the studied economy.
Your very good article does not support your argument that there has been a steady decline in the number of jobs, and they did not "run the numbers" to support your argument which is directly refuted by the actual numbers presented in the link I provided.
Most are fleeing completly lawless countries that are being run by gangs and drug cartels. Others are fleeing cripling poverty. For them its a choice of  Illegaly immigrating into the US seeing your entire family die. If you can solve those two problems and youll drastically reduce illegal immigration . >

It would have helped if the US hadn't intervened in these countries thereby destabilizing them which contributed significantly to the conditions these countries now have. >

So let's be real here as bad as USA was in cold war it's not "these countries" as if all or most it's some. >

It really is at least most of them.
Here's a wikipedia page of direct US involvement regime change in Latin American countries.
This doesn't even include the indirect ways we mess with them, like drug cartels legally buying their weapons here or the war on drugs. >


It really is at least most of them.

Depends on what region you are talking about. Not for South America not that it changes what was done.

This doesn't even include the indirect ways we mess with them, like drug cartels legally buying their weapons here or the war on drugs.

You can point to things that can be done better in US, but blaming USA for indirectly impacting those countries isn't fair imo. Just because USA serves as a huge customer base for those drugs and cartels can get weapons from US doesn't mean it's USA fault or that USA wants that. >


Not for South America not that it changes what was done.

yes for South America >

I mean it's basic math. Count the counties on wiki in South America that were couped to the ones that aren't. 12 SA countries in total less than 6 couped so there you go. Not like this matters either way so not sure why you are making a big deal about it. >

Imagine believing Venezuela and Colombia are countries that did not have the USA choosing their leaders for them >

Imagine believing in conspiracy theories. Unless such activities have been proven, e.g. what was released during cold war or some form of independent 3rd party verified, you do not have adequate evidence to believe such things. America doing X bad things doesn't mean you can just assume in any and every circumstance. >

but like he is not wrong and it’s not considered a conspiracy theory because it is proven. The US did a lot of stuff to destabilize other countries or put into place militant leaders who were capitalists. Just because you are not knowledgeable about a topic does not mean it is a conspiracy theory. The US did a lot of horrible things in the Cold War in the name of stopping communism, this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact. I can go into more specific examples if you really need but you could also just look into the topic your self. >

Allow legal immigration to fill the market needs that demand illegal immigration. >

When I was a kid, every hotel worker I ever saw was born in America.  Most of them were african american, me being from chicago.
Nowadays, hotel staff are almost 100% foreign born hispanics.  And the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites.  We have the labor here, no need to import people for it.  
Employers love this situation though, because a glut of unkskilled labor in the USA means the price for unskilled labor is very low.  Decrease supply, demand will stay the same, price will go up and people will get paid more for things like hotel maids. >


Nowadays, hotel staff are almost 100% foreign born hispanics. And the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites

Back when the hotel staff was mostly black, the black unemployment rate was also twice that of whites. It's been that was consistently for decades. >

And they were paid starvation wages then, too. >

As long as some countries have a far better standard of living than others, there will be a strong desire to move there for many.
As long as the doors are closed but not fully and life for those that manage to sneak in is good enough, a portion of those who want to move will do inclined to take illegal action to manage that.
The only solution that meets the limitations of your question is to make everywhere on Earth just as good a place to live as the most desirable locations.  Chances are that's only possible by bringing down the standard of living of those that have secured a good one so it isn't likely to happen. >

Humans have been trekking from one corner of this planet since the dawn of humanity....It's not going to stop no matter what you do...politicians and governments know it and only use migration as a political tool to stay in power. Humans always find a way to migrate no matter what you do. >

You really can't.
America can have cheap goods, or it can have illegal immigrants in their labor force. Not both. Americans choose cheap goods day every day at their local grocery store. >

That would be a disaster.  We are demographically shrinking because the boomers are retiring and are the biggest working cohort ever.  There will continue to be worker shortages for the next 15 years.  We need a million a year to just keep from shrinking a,d shrinking is disastrous to economic growth. >

No, jobs have been shrinking, not growing. The technological context is here that automation is taking away jobs, not creating them. >

*citation needed >

MIT actually ran the numbers, there has been a stead decline in the number of jobs since the computer revolution in the 1970s.
​
People may hate MIT but it has been surprisingly accurate so far. May I remind people around here that their paper on the internet (Electronic Communities: World Village or Cyber Balkans) is right on the money, especially the 'Cyber Balkans' portion of the paper?