Mark Mitchell’s De-Indianise Plan Sparks Debate on H-1B Policy

(UNITED STATES) Mark Mitchell, the CEO and lead pollster of Rasmussen Reports, set off a storm on December 8, 2025, after saying he wants to start a consultancy that would help companies “de-Indianise” their workforces — a phrase that many immigrants and civil rights advocates called racist and exclusionary. Mitchell’s comments, posted on X and repeated on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, landed at a moment when immigration and job protection have moved back to the center of national politics in the United States 🇺🇸.

The debate is hitting Indian nationals working on H‑1B visas, their employers, and students who hope to stay after graduation. Mitchell said the goal is to cut reliance on Indian tech workers in Silicon Valley and push firms to hire and train Americans.

Mitchell’s claims and examples

Mitchell argued that the H‑1B program lets corporations replace US citizens with cheaper foreign labor, and he singled out Indian nationals who receive over 70% of the annual 85,000 H‑1B visas. On the podcast he claimed Silicon Valley is two‑thirds foreign‑born, and said entire buildings at companies such as Apple and Walmart are 85–95% Indian nationals.

He offered an arresting economic comparison:

Deporting “one senior H‑1B developer” earning around $90,000 a year is economically like removing 10 undocumented immigrants earning $9 an hour.

He also accused employers of forcing older American engineers to train their replacements from “third‑world labor,” a line that drew swift online backlash. In his X post, he said his consultancy would teach executives how to “de-Indianise” without harming business results quickly.

Pushback from lawyers, industry groups, and data

Immigration lawyers and industry groups disputed Mitchell’s depiction of the visa system, saying H‑1B visas often go to roles that need rare skills in software, engineering, health care, and finance.

Key counters and data cited in the source material include:

• Foreign‑born workers hold 66% of Silicon Valley tech jobs.
  • Indians: 23%
  • Chinese: 18%
• H‑1B holders make up only 0.3–0.4% of the total US labor force.
• Official H‑1B rules are available at the government site: USCIS.

Even so, the “de‑Indianise” slogan struck a nerve because it treats a nationality as a problem to be removed, rather than a group of workers hired under federal rules. The remarks also fueled radio and social media threads that have long portrayed foreign hiring as a wage threat.

Impact on Indian professionals and families

For many Indian professionals, the issue is not only reputation but also their status in the country. Common pathways and pain points:

• Many arrive on H‑1B visas and then enter long waits for employment‑based green cards (EB‑2, EB‑3).
• Country caps can push Indian‑born applicants into backlogs measured in decades.
• Policies and programs that affect daily life include:
  • Extensions beyond the normal six‑year H‑1B limit
  • Work authorization for spouses on H‑4 dependent visas
  • The slow path toward US citizenship

Advocates warned that rhetoric like “de‑Indianise” can harden the climate around these policies. As of December 12, 2025, the source material says no new policy had been announced because of Mitchell’s remarks, but families read the rhetoric as a signal. Workers traded fears about layoffs, visa denials, and bias online overnight.

Consequences for international students and universities

International students — particularly Indian students, one of the largest foreign student groups in the US — watched the dispute closely.

• Many come on F‑1 visas and rely on Optional Practical Training (OPT) to work after graduation before seeking an employer to sponsor an H‑1B.
• University administrators warn that employer pullback can:
  • Cut enrollment and tuition revenue
  • Redirect graduates toward other destinations (Canada 🇨🇦, Australia, parts of Europe)
• Critics say Mitchell’s framing risks sending a blanket message that Indian graduates are not wanted, even when they earned US degrees and paid US tuition.
• Some prospective students said they now think twice about choosing US schools for the 2026 intake.

Economic arguments on both sides

Economic points raised in the debate include:

• Supporters of skilled migration note:
  • High‑skilled immigrants pay federal and state taxes
  • They contribute to Social Security and Medicare, sometimes for years without collecting benefits
  • Indian‑origin professionals are often founders and senior leaders across tech
  • Skilled migration is part of the country’s historic ability to recruit global talent
• Critics (including Mitchell and Bannon) argue:
  • Employers should invest more in training US workers, especially where older engineers say they were pushed out

Kartik Gada, a technology executive cited in the source material, called Mitchell’s line “scapegoating”, describing Indian immigrants as the “most‑educated, highest‑taxpaying, lowest violent crime” group.

Claims of fraud and compliance issues

The controversy revived older complaints from critics of large outsourcing firms and from displaced workers who say they trained replacements and lost jobs.

• Supporters of stricter controls repeated allegations (cited in source material) about kickbacks and resume fraud, claiming up to two‑thirds of applicants commit such fraud — without supporting evidence in the excerpts provided.
• Immigration specialists countered:
  • Abuse is a compliance issue for agencies and employers, not proof that an entire nationality is gaming the system.
  • Companies must meet wage and filing rules when they file for an H‑1B worker.

Policy context and processing issues

The controversy sits within a broader policy push under President Trump’s second term, where conservative voices have linked skilled immigration to:

• Economic nationalism
• Trade tariffs
• The idea that remote work makes it easier to hire abroad

The source material also notes recent State Department expansions in online vetting for H‑1B/H‑4 visas from India, a change visa holders say adds delays and uncertainty even when approvals and jobs are ready.

• Attorneys say processing friction can ripple through companies because a delayed visa stamp can keep a worker abroad and interrupt projects.
• Companies that depend on global hiring worry blunt messaging will make recruits choose other countries.
• VisaVerge.com reports perception shifts can matter because talent has options today.

Practical effects and advice for employers and workers

Companies and workers emphasized separating heated rhetoric from the legal tools that govern hiring.

• The H‑1B program is federal:
  • Employers must show a specialty occupation and follow wage rules
  • Workers must keep valid status or leave
• For people stuck in green card lines, a hostile climate can feel personal:
  • A job loss can trigger a scramble for a new sponsor or a move back home
  • Several Indian visa holders posted online saying Mitchell’s comments made them feel their years of tax payments and long work hours were erased
• Immigration advocates urged officials and companies to avoid slogans that sound like group punishment and to stick to facts about jobs

Practical steps reiterated for employers and workers:

1. Follow the rules for visa filings and employment eligibility.
2. Keep comprehensive records of sponsorships, wage attestations, and communications.
3. Prepare for longer waits at consulates if extra screening or vetting expands.

Political and cultural fallout

Mitchell has not backed away from his plan. Supporters of tighter visa rules say his blunt wording reflects anger among some voters who think tech is closed to Americans without elite networks.

Critics responded that the phrase “de‑Indianise” is not a policy proposal but a cultural warning flare, because it:

• Casts workers as a contaminant
• Invites copycat language aimed at other groups

With elections approaching, both parties face pressure to address wages, layoffs, and the cost of living, and H‑1B visas again serve as a symbol in that fight. For now, the practical steps for employers and workers remain the same even as politics shift: follow legal rules, keep records, and prepare for processing delays.