‘Trump should end H-1B visa': Critics demand stricter rules to protect US jobs
US immigration lawyer Joseph Bovino has called for reforms, noting that H-1B visa holders are tied to one employer and risk losing their legal status if their job ends early. Critics also say a large share of H-1B visas go to outsourcing firms, which they believe undermines the programme's original purpose of filling roles that require specialised skills.
Bovino says H-1B used to replace US workers
In a recent post on X, Bovino said the programme lets companies lay off US workers while hiring foreign staff at lower pay, contradicting claims that visas are only issued when no qualified Americans are available. He cited Microsoft as an example, saying it cut over 15,000 jobs while filing more than 14,000 H-1B applications for similar roles.
Bovino also said the programme suppresses wages and ties foreign staff to a single employer. 'Workers on H-1B visas face a very short window, 60 days, to find a new sponsor if terminated, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation,' he said.
He criticised outsourcing firms, particularly those from India, for dominating the visa allocations to supply cheaper labour for jobs that may not require advanced skills. Some firms, he claimed, even apply for non-existent jobs or keep staff 'on the bench,' a practice he says goes against the programme's purpose.
Bovino suggested alternatives like investor and O-1 visas, which he said benefit applicants and the US economy without the problems linked to the H-1B.
Internet reaction
Reactions to his post were divided. Some agreed the visa slots should be fewer and more competitive, reserved for top talent. 'There needs to be very limited H-1B visa slots, and requestors need to compete against each other for who gets the visa. A few best of the best, and the rest need to improve themselves,' one user wrote.
Another user chimed, 'H-1B employees should be laid off first at an absolute minimum. That said, I'm in favor of ending basically all visa work programs. If you want someone from another country, hire them in that country. However, even that should have an associated cost.'
A different user wrote, 'But H1b were also laid off too, all those 15k are not all 'Americans'. It's a combination of Americans, Green card holders, H1b and OPT. A lot of folks on visas have returned back to their home countries. Why not look into the practices of these companies who can just fire during record profits? There should be rules against companies who laid off h1bs wanting to hire h1b. Simple.'
Also Read: Indian H-1B visa holder shares quick, smooth renewal experience in Jamaica
Another user penned, 'I think there should be a limit on H1B slots. There are way too many people coming in for that. We need to recruit people here. We need America first!'
One of the other X users wrote, 'I am not sure about eliminating the program. However, it is definitely a mistake to give working visas to those who contribute NOTHING to the economy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Jackie Bezos, who backed son Jeff's Amazon dream, passes away at 78
Jackie Bezos, a fierce protector of her son Jeff before he founded Inc. and a deep-pocketed advocate for early childhood education, has died. She was 78. Bezos died at her home in Miami on Thursday, according to the Bezos Family Foundation's website. In a tribute on social media, Jeff Bezos wrote that his mother passed away 'surrounded by so many of us who loved her,' saying her death followed 'a long fight with Lewy body dementia.' With her husband, Miguel, Bezos was the first to invest in Amazon. Their two checks, totaling $245,573 in 1995, backed the startup that Jeff Bezos warned would probably fail. It didn't, of course, and the investment – along with subsequent purchases of Amazon shares – netted them a fortune estimated to be as large as $30 billion in 2018. Starting in 2000 — decades before their son or his company launched their own philanthropic endeavors — the couple funded educational programs through the Bezos Family Foundation. For years, it was the highest-profile charity giving away a slice of the fortunes created by the e-commerce giant. 'At the core of the foundation's work is Jackie's belief that rigorous, inspired learning — in the classroom and in children's hundreds of daily interactions with adults — will allow students from birth to high school to put their education into action,' the organization says on its website. It says her 'vision' is behind two in-house programs — Vroom, which disseminates parenting tips via an app and other methods, and the Bezos Scholars Program, which chooses 17 young Americans and Africans to be trained in a leadership development program each year. The foundation has backed hundreds of other organizations, primarily focused on kids and young adults. It made its biggest single gift in August 2024 — $185.7 million to the Aspen Institute to underwrite a new center focused on young people. Father's work Jacklyn Marie Gise was born in Virginia on Dec. 29, 1946. She grew up in New Mexico, where her father, Lawrence Preston Gise, was a senior official at the US Atomic Energy Commission, the agency that then oversaw US nuclear laboratories. During her sophomore year in high school in Albuquerque, she became pregnant by Theodore Jorgensen, a senior. They married in 1963 and their son, Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen, was born the following January. Jacklyn, known as Jackie, moved back in with her parents and filed for divorce from Jorgensen when their son was 17 months old. Jorgensen, a unicycle polo player who would later run a bicycle shop, acknowledged that he wasn't a particularly good father or husband. 'It was really all my fault,' he told Bloomberg Businessweek editor Brad Stone for his book, The Everything Store. (2013). 'I don't blame Jackie at all.' Jorgensen died in 2015. Newly single, Jackie completed high school on conditions imposed by administrators: that she not speak to classmates, loiter on campus or attend graduation. She later enrolled in community college, seeking out professors who would permit her to bring a toddler to class. Second marriage It was around this time, while working in the Bank of New Mexico's bookkeeping department, that she met Miguel Bezos, known as Mike, a Cuban-born college student who was a night teller at the bank. He had arrived in the US at age 16, a refugee among the thousands of other children sent to live in the US after Fidel Castro's revolution. According to Stone's book, Jackie turned him down several times before finally agreeing to go on a date, to see The Sound of Music. The two married in April 1968 and moved to Texas, where Mike took a job as a petroleum engineer with what became Exxon Corp. They had two children: Christina, in 1969, and Mark, in 1970. Jeff, who had no relationship with his biological father, was adopted by Miguel and took the Bezos surname. Jackie 'ran a household steeped in board games, science projects and storytelling,' Mark Leibovich wrote in The New Imperialists (2002), his book profiling Jeff Bezos and other business titans of the 21st century. Jackie was a 'foremost protector and all-purpose support system' for Jeff, Leibovich wrote. Gifted programme In one example, Jackie got Jeff — a curious child who at age 3 took apart the walls of his crib so he could sleep in a bed — into a pilot program for gifted students at a Houston elementary school. She did the same when the family later moved to Pensacola, Florida. 'You don't just go away,' she told Leibovich. 'You don't go gently. You just keep trying to convince people.' She indulged Jeff's passions, regularly ferrying him to Radio Shack so he could tinker with homemade electronics. During a stint in New Jersey, Jackie, then 40 years old, earned a degree from the College of Saint Elizabeth (now Saint Elizabeth University) in Morris Township. After Jeff gave up his New York hedge fund job to found Amazon near Seattle, his parents put much of their nest egg into the company — a decision they would later say was a bet on their son rather than the prospects of an internet bookseller. When Amazon became a Wall Street darling after its 1997 initial public offering, Jackie visited newsstands to find stories about her son, then left the magazine open to that page, Leibovich wrote. Move to Seattle In 2000, Jackie and Mike, who by then had retired from Exxon, moved to the Seattle area to be closer to Jeff's growing family. In Seattle, Jackie Bezos wrote occasional opinion pieces in the local newspaper, advocating for early childhood education. She and Mike donated in support of an ultimately successful voter initiative that established state charter schools in Washington and against a proposal to implement an income tax in the state. Voters rejected the tax. The couple were frequent donors to Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, including a $710 million gift in 2022 made outside of the foundation. They kept homes in Colorado and Texas and in recent years spent much of their time living in Miami.
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. has no alternative to India in diamonds, say industry leaders
Already grappling with job losses and a slowdown in orders, Gujarat's diamond sector has been dealt another setback as the United States, its largest export destination, raised import duties to 25% with an additional tariff of 25% coming into effect from August 27, taking the total to 50%. The hike, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, has raised concerns among exporters who warn the rates are 'unsustainable' for long-term trade, and are optimistic about the business. It comes at a time when industry is still struggling with the fallout of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the growing presence of cheaper lab-grown diamonds in global markets. Despite the grim statistics, some leaders are urging calm. 'This is a temporary phase. The U.S. has no best viable alternative to India for loose and jewellery diamonds,' said Jagdish Khunt, president of the Surat Diamond Association. 'Yes, tariffs are a blow, but it will eventually push prices up in the U.S., and buyers there will have to absorb the difference because sourcing from India remains unavoidable,' he told The Hindu. Industry estimates show that the U.S. alone accounts for more than 30% of India's gem and jewellery exports, making it the single-largest overseas buyer. In Gujarat, where nearly 90% of natural diamonds imported to India are cut and polished, trade bodies say more than one lakh workers have lost jobs since April this year. In May, the Gujarat government rolled out a relief scheme aimed at helping diamond artisans and small units hit by a global slowdown. More than one lakh former workers from the sector have sought assistance under the programme, which offers ₹13,500 per child to support affected families. 'Nearly 90% of India's supply is processed here. What other alternatives do they have? We have the best 'ratnakalakars' (diamond artisans) in the world, and a customer buying diamonds will never compromise on quality,' asks Mr. Khunt. He compared the American affinity for diamonds to the Indian love for gold, noting that just as Indians continue to purchase gold despite soaring prices, U.S. consumers remain steadfast in their preference for diamonds. 'No matter the circumstances, they pick diamonds over gold. We expect the market to steady ahead of Christmas and New Year, with fresh orders starting to flow in,' he said, adding that over 7.5 lakh artisans are working in 3,500 small and large units. Data from the Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), India's apex body for the industry, shows that in the 2024–25 fiscal year, India shipped cut and polished diamonds worth $4.8 billion to the United States. The U.S. market thus accounted for over one-third of the country's total diamond exports, which amounted to $13.2 billion for the year. According to GJEPC, India's rough diamond imports fell sharply in 2024–25 to $9.52 billion, down from $14.26 billion in the previous fiscal. Babu Vaghani, president of the Lab-Grown Diamonds Association, shared Mr. Khunt's optimism, describing the current situation as a 'short-term crisis.' 'Whatever the challenges, we must keep going until Diwali. Even if it means trading on smaller margins, the work has to continue for the sake of the lakhs of people who depend on it for their livelihood,' he said. Mr. Vaghani pointed out that more than half of the artisans outside Surat, particularly in Bhavnagar, Botad, Mehsana, and other districts, are women. 'In rural areas, women play a major role in diamond polishing,' he added.
The Wire
12 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Geopolitics of the 'Great Man'
The Trump administration is currently attempting to rewrite American history by whitewashing the country's negative legacy and scrubbing out references to anything connected to multiculturalism or diversity. Gone is Harvey Milk's name from a Navy ship and Bea Arthur's contributions to the Marine Corps from a Pentagon webpage. The administration attempted to remove Harriet Tubman from the National Park Service's digital description of the Underground Railroad. It is gearing up for a showdown with the Smithsonian over its presentation of U.S. history. Trump is also readying his alternative. For the country's semiquincentennial next year, he is planning to erect a National Garden of American Heroes with sculptures of 250 great individuals from American history. Purging U.S. government websites and censoring Smithsonian exhibits is not the only, or the most important, way that Trump is whitewashing American history. His pardoning of the January 6 rioters transformed coup plotters, murderers, and right-wing extremists into 'patriots' (while also releasing some very dangerous individuals back into the community). His executive order abolishing birthright citizenship was a bid to rewrite the U.S. constitution. Changing the interpretation of facts is not as satisfying for 'men of action' like Trump as changing the actual facts on the ground. For decades, historians have moved away from the 'great man' theory of historical analysis to focus on a more diverse array of actors, from less prominent individuals and previously maligned groups to social movements and impersonal forces like the economy and the environment. Trump is pushing back against this trend by insisting that only 'high quality' individuals have been history's movers and shakers. In truth, Trump only cares about one 'great' individual – himself. He believes that he is the greatest president in U.S. history. With Steve Bannon as his Hegel, Trump styles himself as a Napoleonic embodiment of the spirit of the age – a 'world-soul on horseback.' Never mind that Napoleon trampled the ideals of the French Revolution, launched horrific wars of conquest, and ended up (twice) exiled to an island. He was a nasty piece of work who took big risks. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, even some of Trump's critics have begun to agree with his self-evaluation. In declaring Trump 'great,' but not necessarily good, the founding editor of Politico John Harris argued earlier this year that greatness 'is now simply an objective description about the dimensions of his record.' It's why Time magazine named Trump Person of the Year twice (after winning the 2016 and 2024 elections). A good man like Jimmy Carter contented himself with one term and a post-presidential career of humanitarian service. A 'great man' like Trump lies and cheats his way back into the Oval Office in order to finish the work he started in his first term of destroying American democracy. Other leaders are engaged in their own effort to remake their countries' history. Russia's Vladimir Putin is resurrecting the idea that the genocidal Stalin was a laudable leader. Hungary's Viktor Orban has attempted to make the fascist Admiral Horthy great again. And the Philippines' Bongbong Marcos is doing his best to untarnish the image of his father, dictator Ferdinand Marcos. But Trump is doing more than just rewrite America's past and remake America's present. His posture toward history is also his way of approaching geopolitics. He presents himself as the saviour on a white horse who can end the war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, the standoff with North Korea, and the ongoing crisis with Iran. He is not a fan of diplomacy, unless you mean one-on-one sessions with other 'great men' like Benjamin Netanyahu. As Vice President J.D. Vance recently observed about the prospects for a deal on the war in Ukraine, 'The way to peace is to have a decisive leader sit down and force people to come together.' And thus the decisive leader will soon sit down in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin in what can only be described as a show of force – toward each other, toward Ukraine, toward Europe. Will anything good, much less great, come of it? Cornering Putin? One way of looking at the last couple months of Trump policy is that the president has been doing whatever he can to put Vladimir Putin in his place, with that place being the leadership of a second-rate power, a Venezuela with nukes. During the first six months of his second term, Trump has tried to take the lead in his dance with Putin only to discover that the Russian leader is not a follower. The impertinence of the man! So, in an extended fit of pique, Trump has set out to punish Putin and Russia. The most prominent sign of this change in attitude from bromance to rupture was Trump's threat to levy a 100 percent tariff on any country that had the temerity to continue importing cheap Russian oil. That, in itself, was a lowballing of the bipartisan congressional threat of a 500 percent tariff. It turned out, in practice, to be even lower, when Trump added only 25 percent to India's tariff rate. In any case, it seemed sufficient to get Putin's attention. Other efforts to needle Putin included Trump's reconciliation with Volodymr Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine, and the greenlight given to European allies to send their U.S. made weapons systems to Kyiv. Trump even asked Zelensky if Ukraine could use U.S. missiles to target Moscow and St. Petersburg (though he later backed away from that implied threat). Trump then maneuvered Armenia and Azerbaijan to sign a peace deal in Washington that marked a serious reduction of Russian influence in the region, transforming Putin from regional peacemaker to regional bystander. Proving that he's the only alpha male in the room may be the foremost motivation in Trump's calculations from one minute to the next. But ultimately, the president wants to fulfil a campaign promise (to end the war in 24 hours), extricate the United States from all commitments to Ukraine, and shift full strategic attention to China. This prime directive of Trump policy seems to have led his envoy to Moscow, Steve Witkoff, to misunderstand a key demand of Putin's. The Russian leader wants to control all four of the provinces that he has formally incorporated into the Russian federation –Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Witkoff apparently thought that Putin was willing to give up on the latter two provinces if Ukraine would cede the remainder of the first two. This appears to be the reason why a 'land swap' was at the heart of the rationale for the Alaska meeting. Given that Ukraine controls only a tiny sliver of Russian territory at this point, talk of a 'land swap' only makes sense in the context of this misundertanding. But Putin actually said that he wanted Ukrainian forces, not the Russian army, to abandon Zaporizhzhya and Kherson. The Russian leader is not in the mood to compromise, not with his military continuing to gain a bit of territory every day and his political control predicated on the exigencies of a wartime emergency. With this latest invitation from Trump, Putin has already won before the planes have landed in Alaska. He's heading back to the United States for the first time in a decade, without fear of being delivered to the International Criminal Court. He's secured a one-on-one conversation with Trump, without the pesky Europeans or the obstreperous Zelensky at the table. The secondary sanctions are, except for India, on pause. Putin has already gotten what he wants. Why should he give up anything more? Don't expect much from this meeting, except for some vague and ambiguous statement that both leaders can claim as victory. Glad-handing Netanyahu From time to time, Trump has expressed his irritation at Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. He skipped visiting Israel on his May trip to the Middle East, a sign of Trump's unhappiness that Netanyahu hadn't agreed to a more permanent ceasefire in Gaza. More recently, Trump has pushed back against Bibi's claims that there's no starvation in Gaza, reportedly even yelling at the Israeli prime minister in a phone call last week. As a 'great man,' Netanyahu has also acted with decisiveness in changing the facts on the ground. In this case, the policy also happens to be genocidal. That doesn't bother Trump very much. After all, he too proposed turning Gaza into a luxury resort, which would necessitate kicking the two million Palestinians off their land. However, Trump doesn't consider the photos of starving children to be a good look. And yet, the U.S. president has not opposed Netanyahu's plan to take over Gaza. 'It is going to be pretty much up to Israel,' he said. The president has no problem trying to interfere in Brazilian politics by slapping the country with additional sanctions because it's prosecuting Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro. But when it comes to Israel committing genocide in Gaza – or Nayib Bukele changing the laws in El Salvador so that he can be president for life – Trump is suddenly respectful of sovereignty. 'Great men' don't contradict themselves – they contain multitudes. Trump's reign is one long 'song of myself,' a not-very-lyrical paean to the president's own brilliance and capacity to wrangle other autocrats. The problems arise when those other autocrats refuse to be wrangled. The Future of 'Greatness' Trump is taking over Washington, DC under the pretense of combatting crime – in a city where the crime rate is actually going down. He is threatening to assert federal control over other cities, all of them controlled by Democrats. Consider this a form of territorial acquisition. Putin grabs the Donbas, Netanyahu seizes Gaza, and Trump takes over DC. It's a dubious strategy. Occupations always face spirited opposition from the locals. The merely good set out to negotiate compromises that improve, however marginally, something broken in society. Their incrementalism often draws fire from those who rightly point out that half-measures are insufficient in dealing with climate change, global poverty, or endemic corruption. But beware of those whose proffered solutions take the world not forward a half-step but a great leap backward. Trump doesn't do compromise. He doesn't have the patience for incrementalism. His real estate projects – ugly hotels, glitzy resorts, water-hogging golf courses – never improve the neighbourhood. Like Putin and Netanyahu, Trump wants to do big things. They all want to smash the ordinary and use the rubble to build something extraordinary, which usually end up being monumental statues to themselves. Look on their works, ye mighty, and despair… John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is Right Across the World: The Global Networking of the Far-Right and the Left Response.
