(UNITED STATES) — An Indian tech professional shared a Reddit post describing how a multinational company extended a U.S. internship and promised a later move into a full-time role, but offered a small wage increase and no commitment to H-1B sponsorship, sparking a wider argument online about pay, job titles and immigration dependency.
The poster, who wrote that they hold a Master’s degree in Computer Science, said the company offered “a $3 per hour raise above the internship wage” as part of the extension and future conversion plan.
The account spread quickly among international students and recent graduates, tapping into anxieties about H-1B risks, stalled career paths and what some commenters called internship exploitation in a tighter entry-level market.
In the post, the worker said they graduated in May 2025 and landed the job as a 6-month internship after months of job applications. They wrote that the work involved niche tasks with Azure and SQL in a high-cost-of-living (HCOL) area.
The company proposed extending the internship until June 2026, then converting the role into a full-time “Business Automation Analyst” position starting July 2026, the post said. The worker also wrote that the employer offered no H-1B sponsorship.
That combination left the graduate weighing whether the move would help or hinder a longer-term goal of becoming a Software Development Engineer (SDE). The post’s title captured the mood: “Stuck in difficult situation and feeling like coming back”.
The worker wrote that the offer was “basically insulting for someone with an MS degree,” and said the company was “explicitly taking advantage” of their visa situation. They also worried the non-engineering title would “permanently damage” future SDE prospects, prompting thoughts of returning to India.
The story’s specifics are personal, but the dynamics are familiar to many international students who rely on time-limited work authorization after graduation. Graduates commonly start with F-1 OPT (Optional Practical Training), seek STEM OPT extensions, and then look for an employer willing to sponsor an H-1B.
Without sponsorship, employment stays temporary by default, and that time pressure can shape what workers accept. The same uncertainty can make a delayed conversion timeline feel less like a promotion and more like an attempt to keep someone working while postponing a decision.
Internships and contractor-like roles can serve as a bridge for F-1 graduates who need authorized work while searching for stable positions. When the clock on OPT or STEM OPT matters, international graduates can face limits on how hard they negotiate, because a stalled offer can also mean a stalled status plan.
Employers can delay sponsorship decisions for structural reasons tied to cost, uncertainty and headcount planning, and that delay can push workers toward incremental raises or extended internships. Even a strong performance review may not translate into an immediate decision about long-term sponsorship.
Visa-linked work can also shape job mobility in ways that affect compensation outcomes. When work authorization is time-bound or employer-dependent, switching jobs can become harder if timing is tight and a worker needs a new offer, onboarding and compliance steps to line up quickly.
That pressure can influence risk tolerance, including whether someone pushes back on pay or title and whether they leave a role that does not match long-term goals. Financial and psychological strain can build when employment status and career progression feel inseparable.
The broader job market adds another layer, with layoffs, hiring slowdowns, and AI-driven restructuring increasing competition for entry-level tech roles, the account said. In that environment, some workers accept less favorable terms simply to keep authorized employment while trying to find something better.
Online discussions tied to the viral post echoed that pragmatic approach alongside harsher criticism. One commenter wrote: “At the moment, it’s not how much you make but rather how to stay in status. Money will follow eventually.”
Others framed the situation as exploitation driven by visa dependency. “Clearly the company is taking advantage of your situation,” one response said.
Another commenter stressed how difficult the market feels for early-career hires and advised holding on to whatever stability exists. “Having a job and an extended internship in this market is something worth holding onto tightly,” the commenter wrote.
The split reflects a structural tension in visa-linked employment: the same constraint that makes workers vulnerable can also make them cautious about walking away. Social media amplifies those anxieties, turning individual negotiations over pay, timelines and titles into shared arguments about what international students should accept to stay employed.
The episode also underlined a common misconception that an internship extension automatically signals eventual sponsorship. Companies may extend internships instead of sponsoring visas, and sponsorship decisions can hinge on headcount approval, legal review and role classification, leaving workers uncertain even when managers indicate they want to keep them.
For workers, the practical effect is that a longer runway does not always come with clarity. An extended internship can keep pay and status questions unresolved, especially when the employer does not commit to H-1B sponsorship early.
Titles and role classification sit at the center of those worries because immigration reviews focus on the actual work performed, and ambiguous roles can face more scrutiny in later filings. The post’s concern about being steered away from software engineering captured that fear, with the worker arguing that a “Business Automation Analyst” label could alter how future employers see their experience.
Role framing can also affect wage level and job classification, which can become part of an employer’s sponsorship decision-making. In the viral case, the worker said the duties did not align with the SDE track they wanted, even though the work involved Azure and SQL.
Many graduates aim to move from OPT to STEM OPT, if eligible, and then secure employer sponsorship, but uncertainty enters at multiple points. The H-1B cap and selection process can turn sponsorship into a high-stakes inflection point, and the account cited an annual cap of 85,000.
The post also pointed to compliance and cost burdens that shape employer willingness to sponsor. It cited a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions (Trump executive order), describing higher costs for sponsors, especially IT services firms, and linking those pressures to offshoring and AI automation, with “potentially 20-30% cost cuts.”
The account also cited “~$700B U.S. tech outsourcing spend in 2026” as part of the broader backdrop, tying visa debates to corporate cost strategies and the way employers staff technical work. Those claims circulated alongside the internship story as commenters argued about how much leverage international graduates really have when sponsorship costs rise and hiring slows.
For many international students, the debate is less about any single raise and more about how quickly a job becomes a long-term plan. The United States remains a top destination for skilled graduates, but employment authorization timelines can narrow bargaining power, and the central challenge becomes finding an employer willing to formalize sponsorship rather than extend temporary arrangements.
The viral post distilled that pressure into a simple dilemma: accept a role that may not match a software engineering path, or risk losing time and status while searching for something better. As one side accused employers of “taking advantage” and the other urged workers to “stay in status,” the exchange showed how immigration dependency can turn routine career decisions into defining choices for international students trying to build a future in the United States.
H-1B Risks Push International Students Into Internship Exploitation
An Indian Master’s graduate’s account of a multinational company offering a minor wage increase without H-1B sponsorship has ignited a debate on visa-linked exploitation. The case illustrates the precarious balance international students must strike between maintaining legal status and pursuing long-term career goals in a cooling tech market characterized by high costs and increased scrutiny of entry-level roles.
