Again, that provides an incomplete picture. Yes, some jobs will be lost to automation. However, automation will also create new jobs. Many experts believe that these gains will far surpass the losses. This means that we do not need to plan for a sudden decrease in available jobs, but instead we need to plan for an increase in jobs and a transition in available jobs:

https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/07/automation-replaced-800000-workers-then-created-3-5-million-new-jobs/

"A Deloitte study of automation in the U.K. found that 800,000 low-skilled jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost."

Note: This is basically a carbon copy of a post I made earlier. If you didn't see it at first, that is fine, but you could easily go back and read it and respond to it instead of making me repeat myself...

The difference is that U.S. students are eligible for financial aid and loans from the government. Foreign students pay full sticker price. For public universities in-state residents pay an even lower rate than students who come from out of state. Unless your family is loaded it is rare for any US student to pay sticker price of tuition or room and board. Most likely though you will be strapped with momentous student loan debt (I am experiencing that right now for graduate school).

On topic: One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. A few Republicans and conservatives push this argument but even the mainstream GOP recognizes immigration as a net positive for the country. The U.S.A. also has tons of empty space. Only a few of our cities have a population over a million.

Immigration was open borders until the 1930s. Immigrants bring hard workers, kids, and new ideas. The only drain on society is welfare. So eliminate that and problem solved. Immigrants buy things so they increase economy. They open new business too. 

therefore they create business and boost economy. Stopping welfare is the only solution to population growth. 

You are full of bright ideas.  Are you sure you don't have a job in the current administration as a policy advisor?

Only harsh when you use a bad definition of "alive".

But to humor you, yes. Better to have a dead clump of cells than a ruined life of someone who is actually conscious.

Again, true, but only if you have a bad definition of "humanity".

The pimples on my ass have more human cells than the average fertilized egg, I don't see you worshipping them as humans. Though, you're of course free to do so.

The US doesn't have tons of "empty space". Just about 5% of the lower 48 are wilderness untouched by humans. And the less is said about the UK and Europe, the better. Unless you mean urban sprawl creeping into rural areas, but then that'd mean some other stretch of land is going to be ruined elsewhere unless productivity increases enough to compensate for it (and even the green revolution is a dubious achievement long-term, considering the effects of top-soil degradation, imbalance in the phosphorus-nitrogen cycles and climate change).

Of course some people would be quick to jump in and defend Europe claiming forestation has grown in the last decades etc. but... I don't think Europe used to be a monoculture of symmetrically planted Norway spruces before humans. Ideally, you would want a population density similar to that of Australia, Finland or the Baltic countries to actually achieve a sustainable, zero growth civilization. But maybe it could be more as long as we develop quality artificial meat and opt for vertical farms.

Every pimple is exactly as unique and irreplaceable as an egg cell and a sperm cell. The human body is magical, it can just constantly produce new things and just as easily destroy them too. Not sure why something that can be reproduced without effort within a month would be called "irreplaceable".

And the child just goes free to fend for themselves?

Not really, this is a fairly mainstream thing that is one of the core values of modern political parties, such as the Greens. Sustainability as opposed to irresponsible growth across finite landspace - even more finite given that the destruction of ecosystems reduces the world's ability to filter out pollutants. It's mostly the conservative minded right-wing neoliberals who don't like the idea, and they're the figurative heels dragging as society progresses. But job markets are scalable, it's not a flat rate. The reason for the drop in jobs is the same as the last 200 years of history (longer, actually, just accelerated since industrialization), automation reduces the need for routine labour-related jobs. The economy has progressed leftward to adjust for these changes by lowering the proportion of population required in the workplace (mostly, we don't work children and old people anymore) and the lowering of the work week (we're less than half of what we were a few generations ago); and we're able to do this by the increase of rights among the working class and social programs.

Technological progress is eliminating routine jobs, this is an inevitability, and societies that don't embrace the change because of conservative values of "I think future generations need to work as hard as mine" is going to be the downfall of those backward thinking nations. Also hypocritical since those "Future generations MUST work as hard as us" since they do not work as hard as their great grandfathers did. routine work shouldn't be missed when it's gone in sufficiently adjusted societies; if it is, then your country is to far to the right and needs to progress leftward in order to keep up with time's arrow.