Of course it's wholesale displacement. What's your point? That we should protect industries subject to technological shifts just, well, because?
Adam Smith called out three key areas that warranted protection: (1) defense, (2) retaliation, and (3) a phasing out of previous protections. Nowhere did he advocate protection for protection's sake, especially technological change.
The sudden availibility of offshore labor is precisely the condition the framers had in mind with regard to tariffs.
While I have the utmost respect for the Framer's political philosphy, they simply weren't adequately knowledgable about trade to make lasting theories. It's no mistake that while Adam Smith's seminal work was published during the same period, it still took the Brits another 50 years before they fully embraced his concepts (ie the repeal of the Corn tax).
The result is in the history books: GB exploded in economic activity and was the largest economy in the world until around WWI. Their capital investments built our railroads; the legacy of their pioneering work in accounting/auditing/banking/insurance is still with us today.
It's only after WWII that they rejected these ideals, with the predictable outcome. It took Thatcher to reverse course, with the net result that GB is once again the healthiest economy in Europe.
I for one would like to see some acknowledgement on your part that what you're advocating is not tariffs for purposes of defense, retaliation or phased recovery from a previous period of restrictions, but outright protection for protection's sake.