H-1B ugly truth: Firms sideline Americans, says investor Fishback

Investor James Fishback says the “ugly truth” of the H-1B visa program is that many U.S. companies do not try to hire Americans first, even when qualified people are ready to work. He argues that some firms hide job postings and refuse to interview American workers, then bring in cheaper H-1B workers from abroad to fill the roles. His claims echo years of complaints from laid-off engineers and tech staff across the United States 🇺🇸 who say they watched their jobs move to contractors using H-1B workers while they were told to accept severance or train replacements.

Fishback’s stance lands at a tense moment for the labor market, where high-profile layoffs have hit American workers across big tech, retail, and manufacturing. At the same time, U.S. approval data shows a steady presence of H-1B employees, with demand from employers far beyond the annual cap of new visas. Critics say the result has been a two-track system that lowers wages in certain roles and weakens bargaining power for mid-career American workers who face abrupt layoffs and short job searches.

Examples and patterns cited by critics

According to reports cited by Fishback’s camp, some large tech employers laid off thousands of American workers while continuing to file for, or employ, significant numbers of H-1B workers.

• One company approved for over 5,000 H-1B workers laid off more than 15,000 American employees around the same time.
• Another firm, approved for nearly 1,700 H-1B workers, announced layoffs of 2,400 Americans in Oregon.

These examples fuel the argument that the H-1B system sometimes replaces, rather than supplements, the domestic workforce.

How the H-1B program is supposed to work — and where critics say it breaks

The H-1B visa is meant for “specialty occupations”, often in technology, engineering, and other professional fields. By law:

• Employers must pay at least the required wage.
• Employers must attest that they cannot find qualified U.S. workers for the role.

Critics say loopholes and hiring tactics allow some companies to circumvent those protections:

• Setting narrow job criteria that match a single resume type.
• Moving postings to hard-to-find corners of the internet or obscure job boards.
• Relying on large staffing firms to recruit in bulk, placing workers at client sites.

With that setup, American workers can be screened out before they ever get a fair look.

Supporters’ arguments and the counterpoints

Supporters of the current system say:

• U.S. companies need specialized talent to grow and compete.
• H-1B workers help firms meet project needs the domestic pipeline cannot fill.

Critics respond:

• Many H-1B jobs are routine IT tasks that American workers can perform.
• Big consulting firms, especially those tied to India, are major program users and sometimes “flood the zone,” pushing out smaller U.S. firms and driving down rates.

Scale and data

The scale of the program intensifies concern:

• The H-1B visa allows only 85,000 new visas each year for private-sector employers.
• However, the total number of workers on H-1B status is much larger due to renewals.

In FY 2024, nearly 400,000 H-1B applications were approved, mostly for extensions, signaling a deep installed base of H-1B employees across the industry. That ongoing presence makes layoffs more painful for American workers who feel they’re competing with a pipeline of noncitizen labor kept in place by years of approvals.

“Are companies filling real shortages, or replacing American workers to cut costs?” — the core question shaping the debate.

Policy Debate Intensifies

Fishback calls the program a “scam” and backs a full moratorium on H-1B hiring. He argues the United States has enough talent and that foreign professionals should build their own countries rather than move here.

Reactions vary:

• Worker groups frustrated by layoffs find Fishback’s tone harsh but largely agree on the core grievance: give Americans a real chance first and stop replacement through body shops and contract chains.
• Business groups warn that blunt bans would cause harm and trigger more offshoring.

Policy moves reflect pressure for change. Notably:

• The Biden administration introduced a one-time fee of $100,000 for H-1B hiring aimed at curbing abuse and reducing the number of foreign workers brought in under the program.
  • Backers say the fee will deter bulk filings and make it harder to game the system.
  • Opponents say the fee could squeeze smaller firms that need hard-to-find skills while leaving deep-pocketed giants largely unaffected.

The fight is not only about money; it’s also about dignity at work. Many American IT staff report being told to train their replacements and sign nondisclosure agreements. Some describe the experience as humiliating after years of service. These stories have become central to hearings, lawsuits, and statehouse debates, with calls to block any practice that forces a worker to hand over institutional knowledge before a layoff is final.

Recruitment practices and auditing concerns

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the friction over H-1B ties into long-running questions about:

• Wage levels
• Job classification
• The real-world hiring pipeline

Key complaints focus on how roles are defined and advertised:

• If a job posting uses tight requirements that match a single resume type, or only appears in obscure job boards, it’s easy to claim a lack of domestic applicants.
• Critics say American workers are effectively shut out before interviews are ever offered.

Federal data also contributes to the debate. When companies announce big layoffs, worker advocates now immediately check H-1B approval patterns to see whether a firm is still adding visa talent while letting American workers go. The two issues are not always connected, and correlation is not proof of intent, but the optics are often harsh.

Worker impact and proposed reforms

For mid-career American workers, the clash has sharp effects:

• A systems analyst in her 40s may face surprise layoff, a shrinking local job market, and pay pressure if rehired at a lower rate by a contractor.
• A software tester in his 50s may be asked to document processes for a transition he can’t stop, then watch his team dissolve.

Personal stories feed the wider call for rules ensuring real recruitment of domestic workers before H-1B hires are made. Critics propose three main changes:

1. Stronger wage floors to reflect the true market.
2. Tighter rules on third-party placement (contract-to-client arrangements).
3. Better audits of recruitment efforts and clearer proof of broad advertising.

They also want penalties for firms that hide postings or use artificial filters to screen domestic applicants. Supporters of reform say these steps could help even without a full moratorium.

Industry pushback and political stakes

Companies and industry groups that rely on H-1B workers counter that:

• The U.S. STEM pipeline still has gaps.
• The global race for talent is fierce.
• If U.S. firms cannot hire needed workers, projects will slow or move abroad, potentially causing more layoffs.

They also note the 85,000 cap and lottery as evidence that demand far exceeds supply, meaning many firms cannot get the workers they request.

The political stakes are high: any White House move must weigh worker protection against business needs. Lawmakers from both parties have proposed changes over the years, but consensus is elusive. Worker groups demand rules to stop replacement and forced knowledge transfers. Business leaders argue for precision over blunt limits. Both sides agree that clear, enforceable standards are preferable to vague promises.

For official program information, see the government overview of H-1B specialty occupations at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The page explains the legal framework companies must follow, though critics argue the written rules do not match the lived experience of many American workers facing layoffs and contractor-driven transitions.

What to watch next

The outcome will hinge on enforcement and incentives:

• If the $100,000 fee reduces bulk filings, large-scale staffing requests could drop.
• If it does not, pressure may grow for stronger steps like audits of recruitment and stricter limits on third-party placements.

Meanwhile, American workers and their families will continue to watch job boards nervously, weigh severance offers, and plan for mortgages, tuition, and health care in the shadow of more layoffs.

For those caught in this struggle, the stakes are personal: the promise of steady work, fair pay, and a chance to build a life should not depend on a hiring system that feels stacked. The H-1B visa debate is no longer an abstract policy fight; it sits at the kitchen table, where families count paychecks, compare job leads, and hope the next email brings an interview—one that actually goes to an American worker before the role is filled another way.