Oh, look -- another post full of the economic-policy voodoo "logic" that suggests we can prosper better as a nation by isolating ourselves from trade, contrary not only to theory but to every single example in recorded history. You'd think that this would be frowned upon as much as climate-change denial these days, but apparently not.
As long as we have millions more people in the US who consume computer-powered services than earn their living producing them, the population as a whole will prosper better by having those services done at a lower cost. The same goes for importing manufactured goods at reduced prices. Sure, owners of the corporation (including many rich assholes, not just individuals or retirement funds) will earn more money for themselves, but it's a fraction of the total economic benefit, most of which goes straight back into consumers' pockets in anything resembling a competitive marketplace.
But since the benefits of are spread among millions and the costs are concentrated, it's a textbook case where it's profitable to go rent-seeking and mandate that people are forced to consume American programmers' programming, or American laborers' manufacturing. This is an insidious form of wealth transfer that is very regressive in nature (it hits the poor a lot harder than it hits the CEOs).
Finally: of all people, computer programmers in this country are hardly the tragically underpaid class which can't AFFORD to buy toys.