It precisely and explicitly demands that the government restrict supply of foreign labor, as that increases the fair market value of American wage earners. It increases the opportunities for young Americans to trade their labor for a start in life, to support their families, and to make our nation stronger. Importing foreign labor makes it more difficult to justify hiring Americans, and undermines the nation's long term success for short term gains. It is effectively an Anti-investment.
If the clearing rate is equal to the cost of an engineer at a tech firm in SF, the education budget for a small town in Alaska wouldn't afford it.
Your formulation isn't wrong, however it covers only one scenario. What happens when the locality cannot afford the cost to attract people to their region?
This is not even theoretical, its what happened to the rest of the world, as their best and brightest immigrated to America or Europe.
You could say "them's the breaks" and I would understand. However people vote for solutions, so how would you cover the worst case scenario?
we already massively subsidize Alaskan transportation and infrastructure. Adding school teachers, or changing school teacher education requirements, are both options.
This supposes and outcome where domestic wages are increased and investment is made. It supposes that americans are willing and capable of doing the labor at a price point that americans will accept.
It is also possible we will simply not teach these children (or build infrastructure, grow labor intensive crop, ect).
You're describing a market failure. That is a possibility with life. Our economic system worked during eras of very low immigration, namely the 1930s thru 1950s, and our education system was the best in the whole world.