Amazon is facing fresh political and legal pressure over how it sponsors foreign tech workers, as critics accuse the company of exploiting a gap in the PERM labor certification system and turning the H-1B visa pipeline into what they call an organized work-around of protections for U.S. staff. The dispute, which has erupted across worker forums and drawn attention from lawmakers in Washington, centers on claims that Amazon shifted green card sponsorship from its main corporate entity to a subsidiary with no recent layoff history. That move, opponents argue, lets the company keep its immigration machinery running even as American workers report job cuts.
The PERM issue and the alleged workaround
At the heart of the anger is the PERM process, the system employers must use to prove there are no qualified U.S. workers before sponsoring an employee for permanent residence.
Under federal rules, companies that have laid off workers in related roles are expected to wait through a kind of cooling-off period before they file new cases, so they cannot simply replace recently dismissed staff with sponsored hires. Critics say Amazon avoided that brake by closing active cases filed under its primary entity and re-filing them under Amazon Development Center U.S., Inc., a separate unit that reportedly has no recent record of layoffs affecting similar positions.
People close to the company’s foreign workforce say this tactic matters because the timing of PERM applications can decide whether a worker maintains their H-1B status in the long term. When a case is filed, it creates a priority date that later controls the worker’s place in the green card queue.
If that timeline is interrupted by a layoff-related pause, some foreign staff may lose the chance to extend their stay beyond the usual H-1B limits. By shifting cases to a subsidiary untouched by recent cuts, Amazon is accused of protecting that pipeline while thousands of domestic employees continue to worry about job security.
Worker and public reactions
Supporters of tighter labor rules argue that even if this structure is technically allowed, the practice undercuts the spirit of protections meant to give U.S. citizens a fair chance at high-paying tech jobs.
They describe a two-track reality in which companies like Amazon emphasize global competition and skill shortages while at the same time reducing headcount in certain U.S. teams. Among some American engineers who recently lost roles, the idea that new PERM filings can proceed seamlessly through a clean subsidiary, while they remain unemployed, has added to a sense of betrayal and deepened mistrust of corporate hiring promises.
Broader debate over H-1B use
The controversy has unfolded against a wider storm over the H-1B visa, a program that lets U.S. firms employ foreign professionals in so‑called specialty occupations. Longtime critics say technology giants have used H-1B hiring not to fill true shortages but to replace older or higher-paid American staff with younger workers who will accept lower wages and less stability.
The debate sharpened after President Trump signed an executive order in September 2025 that imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions, citing what he called systemic abuse of the system by large employers. That order has sparked court challenges and confusion inside corporate legal departments.
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny
In Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a broader review of how major tech platforms rely on H-1B hiring and related green card sponsorship. Amazon, along with Apple and Meta, is among the companies whose executives and lawyers have been asked to explain whether U.S. workers were displaced, directly or indirectly, by visa holders.
Staff working on the inquiry are examining whether aggressive use of PERM filings, combined with layoffs and reorganizations, created de facto replacement of citizen workers in:
- software engineering
- cloud computing
- other high-demand fields
For now, officials have released few details but say document requests are ongoing.
Amazon’s response
Amazon insists that it follows immigration and labor laws while building what it describes as a global talent base. Company representatives point out that U.S. rules allow corporations to use subsidiaries to sponsor workers and that no agency has formally accused Amazon of wrongdoing in its PERM or H-1B cases.
Internally, managers argue that in some specialized areas—from machine learning to advanced logistics systems—there are simply more qualified applicants among current visa holders than among U.S. citizens applying for the same roles. The company also says it spends heavily on domestic recruiting and training even as it continues to file employment-based immigration cases.
Labor advocates’ counterarguments
Labor advocates remain unconvinced. They argue that what matters is not only whether a filing meets the letter of the rules but whether companies are using complex corporate structures to sidestep the protections those rules were meant to provide.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the anger around Amazon reflects a broader fear among workers that immigration systems designed decades ago have not kept pace with the way global technology firms shift jobs, profits, and responsibilities across multiple entities. In that view, the alleged use of a clean subsidiary for PERM sponsorship is less a one-off tactic than a sign of how creative big employers have become in managing risk.
Impact on foreign workers at Amazon
For foreign workers already employed at Amazon on H-1B visas, the dispute carries a different kind of anxiety. Many say privately that they feel trapped between gratitude for the chance to work in the United States 🇺🇸 and worry that any policy change, investigation, or sudden halt in PERM processing could throw their lives into chaos.
If a green card case is delayed or withdrawn, an H-1B worker tied to a specific role may have only a short time to:
- find a new sponsor,
- move to another status, or
- leave the country altogether.
That threat hangs in the background of every headline about new fees, Senate probes, or alleged loopholes.
Complexity and public understanding
Policy specialists note that the controversy has exposed how little most people, including many lawmakers, know about the mechanics of employment-based immigration.
The PERM process, overseen by the Department of Labor, involves:
- advertising roles,
- reviewing applicants, and
- certifying that hiring a foreign worker will not hurt wages or working conditions for U.S. staff.
Official guidance on that system is publicly available through the department’s foreign labor certification portal, but the rules around corporate structure, layoffs, and related entities are complex even for seasoned attorneys.
That gap between a technical rulebook and public expectations has helped fuel the current storm around Amazon.
Political and economic tensions
Lawmakers weighing how to respond face competing pressures:
- Voters who see headlines about mass layoffs followed by reports of continued H-1B hiring and PERM filings conclude companies are gaming the system.
- Regional leaders and university officials warn that strict limits or massive new fees could push research labs and high-growth startups to shift more work abroad.
- Some in the business community fear that if the alleged Amazon strategy becomes a test case, Congress or federal agencies could rush out new rules that unintentionally trap both employers and foreign professionals in even greater red tape.
What’s next
For now, the future of Amazon’s approach to PERM and H-1B sponsorship rests with investigators, judges, and regulators who will decide whether existing law has been stretched too far. Their choices will ripple through thousands of careers, from recent graduates on temporary visas to mid‑career engineers laid off in cost-cutting rounds.
The uproar has made one thing clear: immigration policy for high-skilled workers is no longer a quiet technical matter, but a front-line battleground in the fight over the modern U.S. job market.
Quick reference: Stakeholders and perspectives
| Stakeholder | Main concern or position |
|---|---|
| Amazon | Says it follows laws; cites use of subsidiaries and need for specialized talent |
| Critics / Labor advocates | Argue companies may be sidestepping protections and displacing U.S. workers |
| Foreign H-1B workers | Fear loss of status, delays, and instability if PERM cases are affected |
| Congress / Regulators | Investigating whether PERM/H-1B use resulted in displacement; document requests ongoing |
| Business community / Regional leaders | Warn against blunt policy moves that could harm competitiveness |
If you would like, I can:
– create a timeline of relevant events and filings mentioned,
– summarize key legal questions to watch, or
– draft a short briefing you could use to explain the issue to nontechnical audiences.
Frequently Asked Questions
This Article in a Nutshell
Amazon is under scrutiny for allegedly moving PERM filings from its main entity to a subsidiary to avoid layoff-related pauses, preserving H-1B priority dates. Critics say this undermines protections meant to favor U.S. workers; Amazon contends it adheres to laws and needs specialized talent. The Senate Judiciary Committee and regulators have opened reviews and document requests. The dispute highlights complexity in PERM, corporate sponsorship structures, and potential impacts on both U.S. employees and foreign H-1B workers.
