This is a common trope. When you're arguing against something that is obviously good, there's not many avenues left, so you hit the same three again and again:

* According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.

* The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."

* Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction

None of those apply here.

> They will just move on to countries with less regulation, which usually means poorer countries with less educated people.

This is #3, a threat that any type of action will harm poor people.

> Banning rarely accomplishes anything, it just moves one appearance of the problem out of sight for a period of time.

This is #2, futility in its widest sense. Not just this ban won't work, no bans work!