Schmitt Mirrors Sanders in Attack on H-1B and Foreign Worker Programs

Senator Eric Schmitt’s attack on the H‑1B visa program at the National Conservatism Conference has pushed a long‑simmering fight over foreign worker programs back to the center of U.S. politics, aligning him—unusually—with Senator Bernie Sanders. In September 2025, Schmitt told the audience that H‑1B “undercut American wages” and “replaced American workers,” framing the program as a direct threat to white‑collar employees and to the futures of their children.

Sanders, who has criticized H‑1B for years from the left, echoed parts of that argument in 2025 while also calling for higher wages, higher fees on large firms, and more freedom for visa holders to change jobs. Their shared skepticism, even though they come from different political traditions, shows how the politics of skilled immigration have shifted. This debate is unfolding against a backdrop of heavy demand for limited visas, tight tech labor needs, and mixed evidence on wage impacts for U.S. workers.

Two competing narratives: demand vs. displacement

The debate is sharper now because the numbers tell two stories at once.

• On one hand, demand for H‑1B remains strong. For FY 2026, employers submitted 343,981 H‑1B registrations, even after a 27% drop from the previous year. USCIS rejected or did not select about 65% of registrations due to the low statutory cap and selection rules, leaving many employers short.
• On the other hand, populist lawmakers argue that high corporate demand does not prove public benefit. They contend the visa is used to hold down salaries and replace U.S. staff, pointing to tech layoffs and outsourcing deals as evidence that companies can find domestic talent but prefer lower‑cost workers tied to a single employer.

What the research says

Empirical research complicates the political picture.

• An April 2024 NBER working paper found that immigration raised wages by around 1.7%–2.6% for less‑educated native workers and showed no clear wage effect for college‑educated natives.
• Because H‑1B targets skilled roles, that study does not fully settle the H‑1B question, but it undercuts blanket claims that foreign worker programs always depress wages.
• Many labor economists say H‑1B workers often complement U.S. teams, expand production, and help firms keep projects onshore.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the best evidence points to overall gains for the U.S. economy from high‑skilled immigration, though benefits and burdens are uneven across regions and occupations.

The structural choke point: the 85,000 annual cap

A key, unchanged constraint since the 1990s is the H‑1B cap of 85,000 new visas per year:
– 65,000 under the regular cap
– 20,000 for holders of U.S. master’s degrees or higher

Because demand typically exceeds the cap, USCIS runs a lottery. Employers register candidates; USCIS randomly selects some; selected employers then file the formal petition using Form I‑129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. Those not selected must wait another year, try different statuses, or take the work abroad. This mismatch fuels both political anger and business frustration.

Political rhetoric and proposals

Schmitt’s speech at the National Conservatism Conference was targeted to an audience skeptical of big tech and Wall Street. He said H‑1B is “kneecapping white collar workers right before our eyes,” accused global companies of importing cheaper talent to avoid raising pay, and called for tighter controls across foreign worker programs.

Sanders, speaking to different crowds in 2025, argued corporations use H‑1B to create a class of “low‑wage indentured servants” with limited freedom to leave bad jobs. His proposals include:

• Higher wage floors
• Higher fees on large employers
• Easier job mobility for visa holders

Many immigrant advocates particularly support faster portability so workers can leave abusive situations without risking status.

Business and political counterarguments

Business leaders — including some tech executives — argue the United States faces a shortage of high‑end STEM talent and needs H‑1B to build and keep teams onshore. Their arguments:

• When firms cannot hire in the U.S., they will expand abroad, taking supporting jobs with them.
• Cutting or crippling the pipeline could push projects and allied roles offshore.

The political overlay is complex:
– A MAGA/populist base and some Republicans favor strict limits.
– President Trump (who briefly halted H‑1B entries in 2020) supported the program in 2025 and aligned with some tech voices.
– On the left, tension persists between labor skeptics and pro‑immigration progressives.

FY 2026 data and human impact

This year’s numbers highlight the stakes:
– 343,981 registrations for FY 2026 (down 27% from FY 2025)
– ~65% rejection or non‑selection rate
– ~70% of H‑1B holders have a master’s degree or higher
– ~80% work in computer, math, and engineering fields

Consequences:
– Companies say unfilled roles cause project delays or offshoring.
– Workers who miss the lottery face costly delays and life disruptions: marriage, home purchases, and long‑term career plans can be put on hold.
– The human impact is often invisible amid political debate.

Legislative and policy activity

• In March 2025, lawmakers introduced H.R.2315, the “Fairness for High‑Skilled Americans Act of 2025,” targeting the OPT program used by many F‑1 students to work after graduation.
  • The bill would end OPT unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.
  • Supporters say OPT lets firms bypass H‑1B limits and hold down pay.
  • Critics warn cutting OPT would push talented graduates to Canada or Europe and make the U.S. a less attractive study destination.

Sanders’s reform ideas aim to change how H‑1B functions without ending it:
– Raise fees on large users to discourage casual over‑filing.
– Increase wage floors to limit use as lower‑cost staffing.
– Enhance job mobility so visa holders can change employers more easily.

Policy experts often advocate for stronger guardrails — better wage rules, faster portability, and strict penalties for violators — rather than slashing the cap.

USCIS process and practical steps

USCIS continues to run H‑1B under existing law. Key procedural points:

• Employers submit electronic registrations and pay a small fee.
• If selected, employers file the full H‑1B petition using Form I‑129 with supporting evidence and the H supplement.
• Spouses and children may apply for H‑4 status; some may work if they qualify for H‑4 EAD under specific rules.
• F‑1 students on OPT often rely on a cap‑gap extension to bridge expiration until H‑1B takes effect on October 1.

For official guidance and requirements, consult the USCIS H‑1B overview:
– USCIS: H-1B Specialty Occupations

When preparing a petition after selection, employers must use Form I‑129 and follow instructions on the USCIS form pages. Dependents changing or extending status typically use Form I‑539.

Economic nuance: complementarity vs. substitution

Economists note the “replacement” claim is difficult to prove at scale:

• Some H‑1B positions displace U.S. workers, especially in outsourcing contracts.
• Many H‑1B hires help firms grow and create more U.S. jobs in sales, marketing, and support.
• The NBER results — modest wage gains for less‑educated natives and no clear hit for college‑educated natives — weaken a sweeping substitution narrative.
• Targeted abuses exist: wage misclassification, unpaid benching, and restrictive noncompete‑like practices have been documented.

Policy responses suggested by experts include:
– Stronger wage rules
– Faster portability
– Strict penalties for violators

Policy options on the table

VisaVerge.com groups current Washington proposals into three clusters:

1. Tightening
   • Cut the cap
   • Narrow eligible roles
   • Raise wage levels sharply
   • Crack down on outsourcing/third‑party placement models
2. Guardrails plus mobility
   • Keep the cap but raise wages modestly
   • Add strict enforcement for bad actors
   • Let workers change employers with quick online notifications
3. Expansion tied to wages
   • Allow more visas but only for jobs that meet higher local salary thresholds
   • Use audits to ensure compliance

Each path addresses different priorities: protecting local workers, protecting foreign workers, or protecting growth. No single option will satisfy all stakeholders.

Near‑term impacts and employer strategies

• Employers face hard choices: hire abroad, expand lower‑cost hubs, or rely more on contractors.
• HR teams plan for multiple outcomes: successful change of status on October 1, consular processing later, or shifting the worker to an overseas office if not selected.
• Employers should:
  • Plan for lottery odds
  • Build robust wage and job descriptions
  • Maintain clean compliance files

Personal stakes and examples

The policy implications are concrete for individuals and families:

• A software engineer on expiring F‑1 OPT who misses the lottery may need to leave the U.S. and rejoin a team from another country.
• A U.S. project lead unable to find a specialist may see work shift to an overseas partner, reducing local support roles.
• A young American graduate might benefit if companies build bigger stateside teams around a scarce H‑1B expert.

These outcomes vary by city, industry, and skill level.

Education, cities, and the global talent competition

Universities and cities compete for international talent.

• If OPT is curtailed, fewer students may choose U.S. schools, reducing research budgets and local spending.
• Business groups warn this would weaken the pipeline that feeds H‑1B and hurt U.S. leadership in key fields.
• Populists counter that universities should train more American students and stop relying on international tuition to balance budgets.

These competing visions — global talent magnet versus local training first — shape much of the public debate.

Policy design tradeoffs

Design choices have tradeoffs:

• Raising wage floors may deter low‑cost substitution but could push smaller firms out of the market.
• Faster portability protects workers but could encourage job‑hopping in tight markets.
• Cutting the cap reduces lottery chaos but likely accelerates offshoring.
• Increasing the cap without stronger rules could fuel more filings without improving pay.

Hybrid ideas under study include:
– Targeted caps by sector
– Salary‑indexed selection methods
– Multi‑year visas linked to employer compliance scores

Practical filing checklist (after selection)

When selected in the lottery, employers generally must:

1. Gather evidence that the job is a specialty occupation.
2. Verify the worker has the required degree (transcripts/evaluations).
3. File Form I‑129 with:
   • Correct filing fee
   • Certified Labor Condition Application (LCA)
   • Supporting documentation (job description, credentials)
4. If worker is in the U.S., request a change of status; if outside, proceed to consular visa processing.
5. Family members apply or extend H‑4 status using Form I‑539 as needed.

Because selection rates are low, HR planning must include contingency routes and international mobility plans.

Political calendar and likely next steps

• Congress returning for late‑year work will likely hold hearings on skilled immigration.
• H.R.2315’s progress will signal appetite for changes to student pathways.
• Executive agencies can act on wage rules, compliance audits, and transparency without new legislation.
• Business groups will press for stability and clarity; populists will press for cuts; immigrant advocates will highlight families stuck in backlogs.

A single administrative rule change on wage levels or enforcement could reshape the market quickly.

Key takeaways and core facts

Strong demand, low selection rates, rising populist pressure, and a widening gap between political talking points and mixed but generally reassuring economic research.

Core facts to remember:
– 85,000 new H‑1B visas per year (cap)
– 343,981 registrations for FY 2026
– ~65% of registrations rejected or not selected
– ~70% of H‑1B holders have a master’s degree or higher
– ~80% work in computer, math, and engineering roles

Whether Congress chooses cuts, guardrails, expansion, or a mix, the outcome will affect employers, U.S. workers, and hundreds of thousands of families for whom H‑1B is a bridge to careers and a stable future in the United States.

Populist convergence and policy fault lines

Schmitt and Sanders share a core critique: the current system helps corporations at the expense of both U.S. and foreign workers.

• Schmitt: emphasizes alleged wage depression and replacement of American staff, especially in white‑collar roles.
• Sanders: highlights power imbalances from tying status to a single employer and calls some H‑1B arrangements effectively “indentured.”

Their overlap builds bipartisan momentum for change. If a deal emerges, expect a combination of:
– Higher wage levels
– Steeper fees for large users
– Stronger audits
– Faster job mobility for visa holders

If Congress instead cuts the cap or narrows eligibility sharply, likely results include more offshoring, fewer U.S. support roles, and diminished U.S. competitiveness in fast‑moving fields.

Practical stakes for employers and workers

The procedural backbone of H‑1B — registration, lottery, Form I‑129, consular processing or change of status — remains unless law or administration changes dramatically.

Immediate action items:
– Employers: plan for lottery odds, ensure compliance, and prepare alternative hiring plans.
– Families and workers: track expirations, keep records, and consult qualified counsel early if changes occur.
– Public: decide whether to prioritize a tighter program that may nudge specific salaries up or a reformed program that protects workers and supports growth.

Whatever policy path emerges, H‑1B will remain central to how the U.S. competes for global talent and how families’ lives and livelihoods are shaped by immigration rules.