You are getting into weak territory here. Since (I imagine) that you advocate free movement of capital & free trade, it really doesn't make sense to point to A

You are getting into weak territory here. Since (I imagine) that you advocate free movement of capital & free trade, it really doesn't make sense to point to Americans making up losses as consumers and/or investors. Unless the 'loss' is pretty negligible, which I don't think you can really argue. The theoretical replaced workers themselves are worse off. They are in less demand & lost their theoretical job. If you assumed they made the best decision for themselves & that was MS, then taking that option off the table disadvantages them. Since trade & investment are relatively free while immigration is relatively restricted, investors & consumers are international citizens while employees are Americans. The US is huge, so that's obscured. But try to think of this from the perspective of a European mid-size State. *Anyway, I agree with your overall point. Economic arguments against immigration are equivalent to economic arguments against trade or investment. The losses are local & very visible. The gains while greater, are international & often hidden. There is a net gain & it is spread around by reciprocation. Since immigration is so restricted today, the greatest 'free' market gains to be made are through freeing immigration, not investment or trade.