Put in a policy saying that anyone whose job gets eliminated or reduced as the result of automation is eligible for half-pay and full pension benefits until they have a new job at an equivalent salary and suddenly the business case for robots wouldn't be nearly so strong. And people will be pushing for stuff like that if they feel that their jobs, rather than some Polish guy's, is at risk.
Migrants, by and large, don't vote, so you can automate their jobs away without incurring regulatory risk to yourself, if you are a large organization. It's the safe place to start.
2016: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21693936-government-tr... 2013: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21573129-why-britain-d...
i'm not sure it works this way...
More accurately: Immigrants did jobs that citizens were unwilling to do for market rates. The market hasn't changed. Low-cost labor is still required, and robots will fill those roles.
If anything, I'd be worried about a net reduction in jobs as a result of removing immigrants... smaller businesses that lack the capital for automated labor may themselves priced out of business trying to employee citizens.
At this point good creative work is probably the closest thing to automation immunity, as well as patient-facing healthcare (ie nurses)... for the rest of us education and experience is the only job security we have.
I mean, it's clearly not a sustainable business for the number of employees you're hiring, in the same way a cheap coffee or meal made affordable by sweatshop or slave labour isn't a sustainable deal.
Either way, if you can't afford to hire someone at a decent wage (or in some cases, even minimum wage), then you don't hire them. You find a new business to get into or do as much as you can yourself or through contractors.