A naive and specious argument. The same argument was used during the 1950's when Ike was President. The oil industry wanted protection from super cheap oil that was just discovered in the Mid-East. Their argument, however, was that the area was unstable and we needed to establish import quotas so we wouldn't become dependent on imported oil..."our military machine depends on it!" Ike went along, and the result was OPEC. If we had been smart, we would have cap our wells, sucked theirs' dry over the years and, in the event of war, then uncap ours. The consuming public would have saved billions in the interim. Your policy suggestions are equally stupid.
So, if you want to stick by your argument, go ahead, but you're asking everyone in the country to pay higher prices for everything from cell phones to medicines. BTW, you need to update your wage information. Look at Tiananmen Square during the late 1980's and count the cars and take a look at the traffic today. You think they bought that many cars on $700 per year income?
Take a few moments and read up on Comparative Advantage and see how both parties can benefit. And if you really want to lower unemployment, you need to remap fiscal policy.
You need to read up on the special situations where comparative advantage doesn’t work. One is high unemployment. Another is where one country doesn’t buy the other’s trade goods and instead buys their equities and debt, like China is doing to us.
Comparative advantage is a good argument for trade of trade goods. But doesn’t apply in this case, because we are moving and selling the means of production.