I you may be shooting from the hip.
The foreign MRO's do not have to meet US FAA standards, much less EPA regulations, etc...
There does not exist a level playing field.
Cheaper labor aside:
1) they are not subject to a 15 year background check (by the FBI might be 5 years now, too old to remember)
2) they are not subject to drug testing.
3) they are not on the FAA radar and to the best of my knowledge have never been fined for shitty work, as USA maintenance has repeatedly.
Put us on a 'level' playing field at least.
B) xUT
The USA will find it difficult to impose all of our laws on foreign countries around the world. You've listed what's different about maintenance performed outside the USA, and you're right - the playing field is not level, but so what? I'm unconvinced that your list of differences makes outsourced maintenance categorically "not safe." Sure, there's some unsafe maintenance going on, both here and abroad, and I have no confidence that any FAA inspector has any ability to make it safe, either here or abroad. Like many government bureaucrats, they tend to get in the way and impose costs on airlines like AA and WN.
The OP appears to be concerned with the number of jobs, apparently hoping that wages will rise if all maintenance has to be performed in the USA. The AA experience proves that the OP's hopes are probably not going to be realized, as AA has more inhouse maintenance, with more inhouse M&R employees than any other airline, yet the workers enjoy the lowest mainline airline maintenance wages.
I don't see the OP's efforts resulting in safer planes or higher maintenance personnel wages, but I'm sure that reasonable people can disagree.