So by open market you mean protected local labor market?
Reread the previous post. Nothing about reducing H1-Bs. Maybe that's the end game for the previous poster, but greatly reducing the indentured servitude aspect of an H1-B visa (especially while saying nothing about reducing the number of H1-Bs!) doesn't restrict the labor pool.
As the OP, i can say I my end game is not to reduce the number of H1B's available but to ensure H1B's actually get a competitive salary with other workers by eliminating restrictions on their job mobility. If employers had to pay the cost of an H1B plus a competitive wage, which they claim to do today, it would be more economically viable to hire someone with the requisite skills that doesn't need to be sponsored since you would avoid all the extra costs; and do not run the risk of, after paying those costs, of losing the employee and having to pay for replacement. Right now, the indentured nature of the H1B means wages are lower because employees have no bargaining power; something that is easy to fix but requires more political will than exists in Washington.
As for a truly open market where anyone can move anywhere; yes that is a nice Utopian dream but like unicorns does not exist. So, we have to deal with the labor market as it is, not what we might like it to be and fix the real world problems that are fixable.