Great, that is an actual argument, however misguided and wrong. Why is it wrong? Because if you look at the real world, merit is one of the least important drivers governing decision making, and rightfully so. Parents pay college tuition for their kids, not for the most talented and capable kids they can find. Political leaders (shysters) are selected from among the citizenry of the nation they are to lead, regardless of how many more "talented" shysters there may be across the border. The same principle applies to every position from president to farm workers, natives are given preference and foreigners are considered only as a last resort. On a societal level the world is organized around the concept of nation states, and on the personal level the world is organized around the concept of blood ties. Meritocracy? Not really.
But that's all just philosophical jerking off. What's actually relevant here is that US Law exists, and governs policy areas like immigration, labor markets, and the distribution of taxpayer money, all of which are intimately tied in with the match process. The way the match process is set up flies directly in the face of the prevailing way all those policy areas are handled not just by the US government but all governments the world over. Just try to imagine, without bursting out laughing, a situation in which graduating medical students in India had the door to a medical career in their own country slammed shut in their face so that "more talented" American imports could take their post-graduate training slots instead! The way this is currently handled in this country is loony tunes land, and I think there is a legitimate legal challenge to be made here on multiple grounds, from immigration law to the misuse of federal funds. I matched so I can't sue because of lack of standing, but I'd encourage anyone who didn't match to consider lawsuits. Particularly unmatched minority candidates as that would put additional wind in the sails of their challenge.