H-1B visas have been an item of hot discussion lately. On New Year’s Day, Newsweek detailed, “At the end of December a bitter row broke out within Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement over H-1B visas, pitting business figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy who believe they boost the U.S. economy against more nativist elements who think they harm American workers. And, speaking to The New York Post on December 28 Trump defended H-1B visas.”
This recent debate reveals a deeper question: Why are we still relying on this program after more than 30 years? Is the H-1B visa program solving America’s workforce challenges—or masking our failure to address them?
…
An H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant visa issued by the United States. Nonimmigrant visas apply to individuals wishing to enter the US temporarily. Reasons for entry might include business, temporary work, study, or other reasons.
H-1Bs allow foreign workers to work in specialty occupations in the US for up to six years, with some opportunity to change that six years to permanent residence. Employers that sponsor H-1B holders need specialized knowledge and typically require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a relevant field. Common industries employing H-1B workers include technology, engineering, finance, healthcare, and education.
The US Department of Labor says H-1Bs “help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.”
Proponents and Opponents
Proponents argue that we should expand the number of visas and skilled immigrant workers. They argue that the program is essential to maintaining America’s competitive edge in a global economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. They highlight how skilled foreign workers contribute to innovation, job creation, and economic growth. They note that H-1B visa holders bring expertise in short supply domestically.
They cite studies that find more H-1B workers in an occupation correlate with lower unemployment. That stricter H-1B policies lead US multinational companies to cut domestic jobs while expanding foreign operations, especially in India, China, and Canada. That higher H-1B approval rates lead to more patents, increased patent citations, greater venture capital funding, and higher success rates for IPOs and acquisitions.
Opponents argue the program negatively impacts US workers by depressing wages and reducing job opportunities. They claim some employers exploit the system to hire foreign workers at lower wages, bypassing qualified domestic candidates. Critics point to instances of fraud and abuse, where companies misuse the program to outsource jobs or replace existing American employees.
Opponents further see the program as a failure to invest in the domestic workforce through training and education. They argue that we need to shift our main effort toward equipping US workers with the skills needed for high-demand fields rather than relying on foreign labor.
Now, for our question: So, why do we need more H-1B visas? Or do we?
Bipartisan Immigration Efforts in the 1990s
President George H.W. Bush (Republican) signed the Immigration Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990. The bill represented the most comprehensive reform of US immigration laws in 66 years. It aimed to adapt national immigration to the American economy’s changing needs. In particular, it addressed the increased demand for skilled professionals in technology, engineering, and other specialized fields.
In 1990, Democrats held a strong majority in the House and Senate. Both parties agreed to increase skilled immigration in support of American business.
One key provision of the 1990 Act was the creation of the H-1B visa category. This effort specifically supported businesses seeking immigrants in “specialty occupations” and required these immigrants to have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a specialized field of study. The bill intended to enable American businesses to fill critical skill gaps the domestic workforce could not meet.
The law established annual caps on the number of H-1B visas issued, initially set at 65,000. This cap intended to balance employer needs while protecting the domestic labor market. Further, employers seeking skilled immigrants had to attest that hiring foreign workers would not negatively impact US workers by certifying that H-1B workers would be paid at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location.
…
By 1998, the dot-com boom raged. Tech companies clamored for more skilled workers in STEM fields, and the nation revamped the H-1B program.
But the political tides had turned. The Republican Party held strong majorities in both the Senate and House. No matter. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) into law on October 21, 1998.
The ACWIA temporarily raised the H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000. It also introduced a training fee for employers sponsoring H-1B workers, initially set at $500 per worker. Congress intended that this fee would fund training and education programs for US workers and reduce reliance on foreign labor in the long term.
…
Employers quickly absorbed skilled workers from the 1998 cap increase, and tech companies returned to Congress a few years later, again asking for more visas. Their request led to another temporary cap increase authorized by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) of 2000.
In 2000, Republicans controlled both the Senate and House. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed AC21 into law on October 17, 2000. It expanded the number of visas and opened the opportunity for H-1B visa holders to apply for permanent residency.
…
In sum, the tech industry has long demonstrated the need for more skilled labor. Critics argue that this pattern of periodic cap raises reveals structural deficiencies in the training and education of American workers.
Saying this condition is a training and education problem dances around the problem. What we have is a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.
Constitutional Duty
The nation’s guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. These six goals are why the nation exists. Advancing interests not linked to these six goals is meaningless at best and damaging at worst. Two goals—general welfare and justice—apply to our discussion of H-1B visas.
First, general welfare. Individuals can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Though not the only components of infrastructure, these conditions build the infrastructure that is individual capability. Collective individual capability generates national capability.
Said another way, empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation’s infrastructure.
Second, justice. Justice presents the opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally. When Americans from any station of birth can access the infrastructure that supports promoting the general welfare, we strengthen American individuals and businesses.
Expanding the H-1B visa program directly means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability, which then generates national capability, or built the system in such a way that denies Americans the opportunity from any station of birth to access that infrastructure, or both. Therefore, we have failed to achieve welfare and justice, two of our six national goals. Worse, rather than decisive efforts to fix this deficiency, and to meet the needs of tech businesses, we bring in skilled immigrant workers from nations who do a better job of achieving these goals than we have.
We should highlight this is not a fault of American businesses. A business’s primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives working within legal and ethical boundaries should concentrate solely on maximizing shareholder value. Corporate social responsibility blurs the line between the private and public sectors.
Any effort toward individual welfare or justice is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, the public sector—or government—must fulfill these roles.
…
A business’s primary responsibility is to generate profits, not solve national workforce issues. The public sector must address justice and general welfare—these are public responsibilities. After all, it is our Constitution, and we are “We the People.”
If we intend to reduce reliance on H-1B workers while meeting the demands of our tech economy, the solution isn’t curbing immigration. It’s building infrastructure and ensuring Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure. To that end, here are three recommendations to set conditions enabling training and education for Americans in tech fields.
1. Change How We Measure Success
How do you know when you’ve achieved your goals? They have to be measurable, and you must actively measure them. For simple goals, the process is straightforward. For instance, if your goal is to solidify your family’s financial security, you might set a sub-goal of saving $500 each month. If your savings account grows by $500 this month compared to last, you’ve achieved your goal. Consistently meeting this sub-goal brings you closer to your broader objective of financial security.
When you lead large organizations, those goals become bigger, more complex, and more ambiguous. For example, how do you measure your organization’s innovation rate? Or…how would you measure the trust you have with your customers? You have to break your big goals down into smaller, measurable units. You have to pick the right areas to measure, and these areas need to directly correlate to your goals. If we choose a metric that is easy to measure but only loosely connected to a goal, the insights we gain about our progress become unclear and ambiguous.
Another note about picking areas to measure—whatever area we choose to measure and apply pressure to will improve. There may be unintended effects of this improvement we don’t foresee, but when there’s money or job performance associated with improving a particular measurable outcome, that direct outcome will improve.
So let’s ask: If we intend the H-1B visa program to become less necessary, how do we measure and assess the national infrastructure that is technical training and education?
Congress evaluates H-1B visas through a lens of economic metrics. Each H-1B generates revenue from employer fees. A significant portion of these fees goes to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other entities to support workforce development and education. The NSF administers these funds by distributing grants and scholarships with the intent to improve STEM education and create opportunities for US workers to compete in a global economy.
This system introduces two layers of bureaucracy. Money flows from employers to Congress, then to the NSF, and finally to education and training programs, where we hope this money has its intended impact. As the old saying goes, hope is not a strategy.
Further, the nation has attempted to implement initiatives to enhance technology training programs, particularly for students in low-income areas. Recent attempts include the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) of 2024. The US Department of Education intends NETP to close the digital gap and improve tech education for all students.
Funding and supporting training programs are commendable efforts. But, if the goal is to strengthen the national infrastructure for technical training and education to reduce reliance on the H-1B visa program, we must measure H-1B visa applications with a clear intent to decrease demand from businesses. That is something we do not do.
In sum, H-1B visa applications are a measure of the tech readiness of the workforce. So…
…
Recommendation 1. We need a better metric: H-1B visa applications per capita.
We must move beyond tracking resources and programs to focus on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.
Tracking H-1B applications per capita directly measures how well the domestic workforce meets industry demands. A decline would show progress toward self-reliance, while persistent or rising applications would highlight where gaps remain.
Declines in H-1B applications per capita should signal reduced dependency on foreign talent and reflect improvements in the domestic workforce’s readiness to meet tech industry demand. This approach will directly measure how well we are closing skill gaps towards a more self-reliant workforce. Reduced H-1B applications would signal stronger domestic readiness, national innovation, and economic resilience.
Now for our second goal. We need to build technical training and education infrastructure.
2. Build Infrastructure
The best training and education programs are focused and iterative. They’re designed to meet specific needs, build on feedback, and improve over time.
We need infrastructure that bridges the divide between high school and high-level tech performance for working Americans. This infrastructure might look like a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nation’s community college infrastructure as an initial base.
We need these programs to apply to all careers. Agriculture needs tech education. Theater needs technical training. Manufacturing needs tech education.
To build this infrastructure, we need to partner with academia to create pathways for students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications in tech. Businesses must also play a critical role by participating in class exercises and presenting real-world challenges. This involvement ensures that programs remain relevant and aligned with workforce demands.
However, business participation cannot be optional. A business’s primary duty is to generate profits, and workforce development may not always align with that goal. The duty of the public realm is then to step in and set requirements. Businesses benefit from the stability and talent of American workers, and they have an obligation to support this development.
Therefore, businesses seeking to file H-1B applications must demonstrate active participation in local training programs. This participation could include participating in relevant coursework or exercises, hosting career days, or presenting industry-specific challenges for students to solve. Companies that fail to engage in these programs should not have the option to file H-1B visa applications. This requirement aligns public and private interests, ensuring businesses contribute to the development of the American workforce while still meeting their hiring needs.
This requirement shouldn’t be imposed on all businesses—only those seeking to file H-1B visa applications. Businesses choosing to hire skilled foreign workers must first demonstrate efforts to find and hire skilled American workers.
Courses within these hubs must be laser-focused on high-performance job skills. While valuable, humanities courses are not essential for many roles and should remain optional. Programs should bridge the gap between high school and professional careers, offering practical training that goes beyond surface-level knowledge. For example, statistics might be a subject skimmed over in high school but would require deeper exploration in a program designed for data analysis.
This isn’t about theory—it’s about measurable results: reducing reliance on H-1B visas, increasing workforce readiness, and securing meaningful employment for American workers. So…
…
Recommendation 2. Create a network of focused and iterative training hubs.
This network would enable Americans to develop high-value skills, solve critical industry challenges, and secure employment in fields currently filled through H-1B applications. Investing in this infrastructure would build capability, enhance economic competitiveness, and create pathways for all Americans to succeed in the modern workforce.
Building this infrastructure would directly address our Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of Americans.
Let’s move on to our final goal. Building a strong training infrastructure removes one barrier to workforce readiness. We must address another: the financial burden of student loan debt, which disproportionately affects low-income Americans. To fulfill our Constitutional mandate to establish justice, we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for the lower half of American students by income level.
3. Support justice by eliminating student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels
We need American students to build their individual capability through training and education. This collective individual capability drives national capability. Further, we have a Constitutional duty to establish justice for all Americans. We achieve justice when each individual has the opportunity to fulfill their role in society.
Student loan debt presents a significant barrier to this goal. For students from low-income backgrounds, this burden can become insurmountable. Due to predatory or poorly structured terms, some student loan debt grows even when borrowers consistently make their payments. A 2021 Wall Street Journal article, Why Student Debt Keeps Growing—Even When Borrowers Keep Paying, highlights how total balances can increase over time despite regular payments, trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt.
This violates the principle of justice. If students from the lowest income brackets cannot repay their loans and gain access to training and education, they are effectively barred from achieving the qualifications necessary to contribute meaningfully to society. Without this access, they cannot fulfill their potential or aid in building national capability.
Let’s consider a straightforward question: Why does the government charge interest on federal student loans? The government isn’t a for-profit institution, and the nation benefits when its citizens improve their individual capability. Charging interest on these loans neither strengthens national finances nor aids individual students—it simply prolongs repayment periods and exacerbates financial stress.
Eliminating interest on federal student loans for low-income students would provide these individuals with a fair opportunity to repay their debt within a reasonable time frame. This would enable them to focus on building their skills and fulfilling their role in society rather than being trapped in a cycle of debt.
So…
Recommendation 3. Eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels.
This change would remove a significant barrier to education for millions of Americans, ensuring that low-income students can contribute to the nation’s collective capability without being penalized by debt that grows faster than they can repay it. By supporting these students, we uphold our Constitutional duty to establish justice and strengthen both individual and national prosperity.
In Sum
America’s guiding document exists to achieve six goals.
One of these is to promote the general welfare. In part, promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure that enables individual and national capability.
A second goal is to establish justice. We achieve justice when Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure so they can take the initiative to build their capability and fulfill their role in society.
Our continued reliance on H-1B visas means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability or built the system in a way that denies Americans from any station of birth the opportunity to access that infrastructure, or both.
To achieve our Constitutional aims, we must set and progress towards three goals.
We must move beyond tracking resources and programs instead of focusing on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.
We need to create a network of focused and iterative training hubs. These hubs will reduce reliance on H-1B visas, increase workforce readiness, and secure meaningful employment for American workers.
And we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels in order to remove barriers to tech training and education for millions of Americans.
Some will say these aims are too lofty, even unachievable.
To that, I say there are six reasons America exists, and these goals tie directly to two of those reasons. If we don’t make our decisive effort to align with America’s purpose, why are we here?
May God bless the United States of America.
Share this post