If we can presume that the skills currently available in the workforce do not overlap with the skills demanded in the workplace, re-training would both benefit the underemployed as well as companies. Sadly, re-training is not often seen as a solution.
Can you please provide prominent examples where the same actor is pushing both narratives?
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artific...
Summary: AI and automation will "disrupt" millions of low paying jobs
> The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/doc...
Summary: More humans means higher GDP and larger labor force
edit: Tons of examples in ${Your_Favourite_Newspaper}. A lot seem to just push out government and think-tank pieces from upstream.
If you have no desire to learn new things, then yes, you will be in a world of hurt in the new economy. If you do, there are abundant opportunities for you.
That aspect is indeed covered, however you will notice is a small constituent of what was proposed. Much of the bill is focused on the increased labor participation for low-skilled work (also includes protection for the skilled US jobs, countering that original point) as well as the increased GDP expected due to more people to provide loans to etc. Also, put it in context of the distribution of skill level in the jobs filled by immigration.
Any of these papers can be quoted to support either side tbh, it can be quite hard to decipher and see the bigger picture.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/in-defense-of-immigrants-...
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u-s-manufacturing-may-dep...
On the right, the Wall Street Journal. (paywall thwarted my quick attempt to get links)
1. We need mass immigration to keep up growth
2. Robots and AI are coming to take our jobs, so get used to it.
Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite heavily, especially 2. Both are being memed into public consciousness, but by who and for what purpose I don't know.
I have not thought it all through, but surely if you are expecting higher unemployment supported by a welfare state you would want a smaller population? Both present a (perceived or real) threat in the minds of the working class and a somewhat contradictory message. It is easy to adopt a conspiratorial mindset on this in the belief that the public are being groomed for mass unemployment and to accept further exacerbated social inequality.