In a recent X post, Bovino said the program allows companies to lay off U.S. employees while simultaneously hiring foreign workers at lower wages, undermining the claim that H-1B visas are issued only when qualified Americans are unavailable. He pointed to Microsoft, which recently cut more than 15,000 jobs while filing over 14,000 H-1B petitions for similar roles, as a prime example of the system’s potential for misuse.
Bovino highlighted that the program often suppresses wages, creating pressure on American salaries, while tying foreign employees to a single employer. “Workers on H-1B visas face a very short window, 60 days, to find a new sponsor if terminated, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation,” he noted.
The attorney also criticized outsourcing firms, particularly from India, for dominating H-1B allocations to supply low-cost labor for positions that may not require specialized skills. He said some of these firms even file for jobs that don’t exist or keep employees “on the bench,” practices he argues undermine the program’s original intent.
Bovino suggested alternatives such as investor and O1 visas, which, he said, benefit both applicants and the U.S. economy while avoiding the pitfalls of the H-1B system.
Reactions to his post were mixed. Some agreed with Bovino that the visa slots should be far more limited and competitive, reserved for top-tier talent. One user argued, “There needs to be very limited H1B visa slots, and requestors need to compete against each other for who gets the visa. A few best of the best, and the rest need to improve themselves.”
Others noted that layoffs at firms like Microsoft affected a mix of Americans, Green Card holders, and visa holders, pointing to corporate practices rather than the visas themselves as the root problem. One commenter argued that broader immigration should be paused until domestic economic issues, such as job security, debt, homelessness, and crime, are better addressed, echoing historical policies aimed at ensuring assimilation.