Overseas players - missing the point

One of the most frequent and long running debates is about oversaes players (Lord Harris chose an England team for a Lord's Test match without Ranjitsinhji in 1896 , apparently out of misplaced jingoism - and he wasn't even what we'd call nowadays an overseas player).
And the debate usually centres on how the overseas players pick up skills and experience, particularly of English conditions, that they can later use against us in Test matches and how their presence bars the way for young English talent.
Occasionally the points are also made that they raise the standard and the level of entertainment which must benefit local talent and that those good enough to reach England sides should be able to overcome the competition anyway.
But I remember when I first started watching county cricket how the Hampshire fans loved their Roy Marshall and soon how Kent supporters felt similarly about Asif Iqbal and John Shepherd, Middlesex had Wayne Daniels and Somerset Joel Garner and Viv Richards. They, and several like them, all became part of their adopted teams set-ups and were treated as such by the supporters. It was because they stayed for long spells and as far as I can remember didn't move to other counties (well Viv did have a brief go at Glamorgan, but you understand my point) - they were as much part of the sides as the locals.
Nowadays the time seems short between applauding enthusiastically for 'your' overseas star's performance and clapping politely as he does the same thing for the oppo..
So how about rules that prohibit overseas contracts of less than say 3 months or prevent overseas players playing for more than one county in say 8 years - or would we hear the old Kolpak arguement about restraint of trade?