Sriram Krishnan, a Chennai-born engineer, has been appointed senior policy adviser for AI in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, sparking a heated debate by endorsing it. US immigration policiesIncluding removing country caps (not all caps) on H-1B visas, which allow U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in specific fields such as technology and engineering. This drew strong criticism from former congressional candidate and outspoken MAGA supporter Laura Loomer. The controversy highlights a growing rift within conservative circles, e.g MAGA anti-immigration Confrontation with lawyers TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY People like David Sachs on issues like H-1B visa and green card reform. At the heart of the debate are competing visions of what best serves America’s economic and social interests: favoring or embracing native-born workers; Skilled Migration to drive innovation.
Regarding the debate
The H-1B visa program, a lifeline for the U.S. tech industry to source top-tier global talent, has become a lightning rod in the immigration debate. Critics, rallying behind the “America First” banner, slam it as a job killer for American workers and a tool to suppress wages. However, proponents argue that it is the backbone of innovation, reducing skills gaps and driving economic growth.
At the center of recent battles is a push to repeal country-specific caps on employment-based green cards — rules that give all nations equal allocations, regardless of demand. This antiquated system forces skilled Indian professionals to endure backlogs of more than a decade while applicants from less competitive nations travel through, highlighting glaring inequities in the system. The current system’s 7% cap per country on employment-based green cards disproportionately affects Indian professionals. Despite comprising a significant share of H-1B holders, Indian applicants face long backlogs due to high demand. Advocates for reform argue that removing these caps would:
• Ensure proper allocation based on merit.
• Reduce the uncertainty that prevents the world’s top talent from committing long-term to the United States.
Critics counter that easing these restrictions could flood the labor market, suppress wages and leave American workers at a disadvantage.
Players and their positions
Tech leaders advocate for eliminating country-specific green card caps to retain skilled workers and drive innovation, emphasizing global competitiveness and economic growth. In contrast, MAGA critics decry the reforms as undermining American workers, prioritizing domestic employment, and pushing for tighter immigration controls to counteract global influences that reflect deep ideological divisions. The dispute ultimately boils down to conflicting priorities: economic innovation versus labor protectionism and meritocracy versus nationalism.
Technology leaders
Prominent figures such as Sriram Krishnan, David Sachs and Elon Musk have been at the forefront of advocating for reforms such as removing country-specific caps on green cards while maintaining an overall cap. They argue that this targeted reform is competency-based, designed to retain the skilled workers needed to drive innovation in critical fields such as STEM and AI. Their position pushes for a more efficient, equitable path to permanent residency for highly skilled professionals and the tech industry’s reliance on a global talent pool.
By framing immigration as an economic necessity, tech leaders highlight the risks of losing top talent to competing nations with more welcoming policies. For them, reforming outdated systems is not just about fairness but about securing America’s leadership in emerging technologies and ensuring sustainable economic growth.
MAGA Anti-Immigration Advocates
On the other hand, critics like Laura Loomer strongly oppose these reforms, branding them as a betrayal of the “America First” agenda. They argue that expanding opportunities for foreign workers weakens American graduates and creates unnecessary competition in an already strained job market. The group advocates for stricter immigration controls, emphasizes self-reliance and prioritizes job opportunities for native-born Americans.
For this faction, immigration policies that favor skilled foreign workers are seen not as a boon to innovation but as a threat to domestic employment and wage stability. Their stance reflects a widespread resistance to globalization and a desire to reassert national sovereignty over the shaping of economic policy.
A threat to domestic employment? Tech Founder’s Tech on H-1B Visa
BesteverAI founder Apoorva Govind shared his thoughts on X (formerly Twitter), highlighting his personal experience with the H-1B visa system. She said, “I’ve been on both sides of the H1B visa. For context, I got my Masters from Carnegie Mellon, interned at Nvidia, worked at Apple, then Uber and finally started my own company.
Govind argued that the H-1B program is critical to filling gaps in the U.S. tech industry. She points out that America’s public education system has failed to produce enough homegrown talent in fields like computer science. As he explains, “H1Bs are filling a huge gap in technology left by America’s weak public education system. We don’t have enough homegrown talent that is talented in CS and willing to go into their jobs.”
She added that hiring H-1B workers is expensive and complicated for employers, with high costs associated with the legal process, paperwork and immigration procedures. Govind suggested reforming the system, “We should do away with lotteries, disallow Indian service agencies from playing the system and implement a points system like the rest of the world. Set a high bar for eligibility as skilled immigration.”
Furthermore, she called for a deeper reflection on the failings of the American public education system, asking, “Maybe banning algebra in 6th grade wasn’t such a smart choice?”
America’s Immigration War: The Never-Ending Debate
The battle over skilled immigration exposes a raw clash of priorities at the heart of America’s identity. Advocates argue that streamlining residency for top talent fuels innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth while preserving the nation’s global dominance in technology and STEM. Still, fierce opposition from nationalist factions reveals deep unease: fears of globalization, cultural erosion and widening inequality. These voices frame immigration reform as a betrayal of American workers, displacing native talent and depressing wages. The debate leaves open rifts within conservative coalitions, pitting economic pragmatists on the side of global competition against populist nationalists pursuing progress and “America First.” As the stakes rise, the fight underscores an important question: Should America embrace the global race for innovation or retreat to protectionist policies at the cost of progress?