Let’s turn something on its head, totally backwards. Usually, if native Bob wants his govt to use immigration restrictions to prevent immigrant Juan from “taking Bob’s job” because Juan would work for less wages and the employer would choose Juan over Bob, most people would say that Bob is preventing Juan from taking Bob’s job. But, this isn’t true. On the contrary, it is actually Bob who is taking away Juan’s job. Well, more precisely, none of these statements are true because it’s not even possible to “own” a job. A job is the word we use when two people trade with each other, and no one can own the trade, people can only own the things and labor that they then trade. So, it’s not Bob’s job and it’s also not Juan’s job, nor is it the employer’s job. However, if we are going to use such language anyway, it would be closer to the truth to say that it’s Juan’s job and not Bob’s, because a free and voluntary arrangement would produce the result of the employer choosing to hire Juan over Bob. The job should “belong” (loosely speaking) to whoever the trading partners wish it to belong without outside force constraints. It is Bob who is using force (through govt immigration restrictions) to block Juan and the employer from voluntarily contracting trade together, so Bob is the real “stealer of jobs”, not Juan. Citizenship and where you’re born has nothing to do with universally moral rules of human conduct and should not cause us to think that some people are worth more or “entitled” compared to others. It’s backwards from what most think.