To some extent. Geography and transport creates difficulty. Central America is ripe for the picking -- actual ports, very close to American ports. Rail lines that already exist. Internal infrastructure (e.g., reliable power) is lacking....but that's part of the win-win. Guatemala gets better power supply and more and better jobs - both raising their living standards and removing the incentive to flee north for opportunity. We get goods assembled/manufactured 1500 miles away, in a country that is small and dependent enough that it CAN'T overly flex its trading partner hand.
There are SMART ways to handle trade. Declaring "all trade deficits are evil, and we're willing to wreck our economy and the global economy to prove it" is the dumbest thing ever.
We have a $30 trillion GDP.
We have a $1 trillion goods trade deficit (I'm using round numbers....and if I wanted to be ACCURATE, I'd say we only have around a $700 billion deficit, as we run a $278 billion SERVICES SURPLUS, but let's just stick with goods for easy numbers).
That's a 30-1 ratio. If we were a household with a $90k income, the equivalent would be a $3k "trade deficit" (more spent on goods than our trading partners, like HEB and Lowes, spend on us). Nevermind the absurdity of saying trade deficits are bad, period. The amount of destruction we're undertaking for something worth 1/30th of our GDP is insane. If you looked at any $90k household, and said "so, you spend $3k on goods that you don't get spending back on, leaving you with $87k in income".....the sane answer would be "cool....so what? And remember, I GET something for the $3k I spend -- groceries, hardware, what have you."
There's not a single part of this approach that isn't utterly stupid, built on a foundation of stupid, and creating an eternal historical monument to stupid.