If I'm a farmer, doctor, teacher, soldier, construction laborer, nurse, miner, or other actual work worker, I should realize this ain't my kids he's talking about.
But you're good to highlight that there's some useful high tech out there on the fields.
On some spreadsheet they are working 3.5 days. Across the entire population. If that actually happens to real American children across the board in corporate America, I will be impressed and proclaim the opposite of everything I say. What I think will actually happen is what you are saying. Fire some manual labor that today is still actually needed and getting paid. Many if not most of those are already not American workers but temporary or outright illegal foreign workers anyway. Not all of it being because "rich people are bad" but also because "poor people are not poor enough" (so to speak - I know this is "political suicide"). What our 1950s ancestors called hard but fair and honorable sweat labor is unthinkable to many of us today and we gladly let it be done by said half illegal labor and we turn the other way and binge watch another Netflix show while complaining that we can't find any good jobs!
You and I exist as citizens of our respective nations. We have wants and needs, and we engage with politics (hopefully by voting) to pursue those wants and needs.
So long as we are part of the majority, it is likely our wants and needs will be more or less met.
When we are no longer in the majority, our needs and wants are less likely to be met.
When politicians import (or allow to be imported) a new demographic into the voter base, who bring with them new collections of wants and needs, that activity harms our bargaining position as politicians are no longer beholden to our interests.
In America, in an era where special treatment and incentives and punishments are being awarded on the basis of ethnicity(which cannot be changed or altered), this maters even more.
We exist in a zero-sum system of relative power.
Do you have a source for this?
Is immigration actually meaningfully impacting party demographics?
Yes. I will edit in a few examples from several countries in a moment.
It's worth noting, however, that interest displacement/dilution is still an issue even if it doesn't force/induce party clustering. Individual parties shifting policy priorities/implementations/strategies to cater to new voter bases to win power results in a relative deprioritization of citizens.
The fundamental dynamics at play still apply.
If the largest demo in a nation only occupied, say, 40% of it's voter base, a coalition of the other demos can override them and (if the competition is polarized enough) will eventually realize the dominant strategy is to actively reduce that groups numbers and power to secure the position of the coalition and the individual power of each of it's members.
Its entry level conflict theory in practice.
Edit: Sources.
Overall trends in party affiliation(USA): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-...
Immigration trends in party loyalty (USA): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
Trends in immigration settlement patterns: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/key-findi...
Trends in voting patterns by settlement region: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-...
The takeaway here is that immigration flows to areas with shared want/need profiles and elevate the national power of those demand slates, displacing power from alternative slates. Whether this good or not depends on if the demands of immigrants overlap with your own demands. If they do, you are empowered. If they do not, you are disempowered.
I will add them shortly.
Maybe they don't want to be?
The conspiracy elements of it are entirely unnecessary.