'73% of H-1Bs go to India': American ed-tech chairman accuses system of favouring one country
“73.7% of all H-1B approvals go to just one country.” With that post on X, Hany Girgis, Co-Owner and Chairman of SkillStorm, an ed-tech firm that builds tech talent in the US, set off a debate on America’s most contested work visa program. His contention: the H-1B system has been “rigged” by outsourcing firms to prioritise what he calls “cheap, compliant labour” from India, sidelining American graduates. But does the dominance of one country reflect bias in the system or simply who is best prepared to fill these roles?
A single country’s dominance
Girgis shared a Bloomberg graphic that underscored his claim. Between 2020 and 2023, India accounted for nearly 2.3 lakh H-1B approvals, close to three-quarters of the total. China followed with just 16.4%, while Canada stood at 3%.
For Girgis, the numbers pointed not to talent but to a structural skew. “This is not about diversity or shortages,” he wrote. “It’s a pipeline issue, a pipeline of cheap, compliant labour feeding outsourcing firms.”
Yet the same figures can be read differently: India’s overwhelming share may simply reflect its vast pool of English-speaking STEM graduates, a reality that does not necessarily vanish just because the statistic looks uneven.
What the H-1B is
The H-1B visa allows US employers to temporarily hire foreign professionals in specialised fields such as technology, engineering, medicine, and academia. Each year, around 85,000 new visas are issued through a lottery system, meant to ensure fairness in distribution. In principle, the program is designed to fill talent shortages and bring global expertise to American firms. In practice, some argue that it has become one of the most polarising tools in US immigration and labour policy.
Cost-cutting vs talent
The American ed-tech chairman sharpened his argument by pointing to salary data. In five out of six key tech roles, H-1B workers earned less than their US counterparts. “If they’re the ‘best and brightest,’ why the discount?” he asked.
But that framing is not without its blind spots. Salaries vary by geography, role, and seniority and not all “discounts” are evidence of weaker talent. The irony, critics point out, is that America’s tech industry has long benefited from this very talent pipeline, even while some of its voices decry it.
The lottery and its critics
The H-1B process begins with employers filing a Labour Condition Application, followed by a lottery and petition approval. In theory, the lottery ensures fairness. In practice, critics argue it has been distorted by large outsourcing firms submitting mass applications, crowding out smaller companies and domestic graduates.
Still, outsourcing firms appear to operate within the rules as written, and their success in the lottery largely reflects demand. If the pipeline flows so strongly from one country, it may be less a conspiracy and more a question of who is prepared, and in what numbers, to fill the roles.
A divided response online
Girgis’s post triggered sharp reactions. Supporters echoed his concern that the program sidelines US graduates. Detractors countered that India’s dominance is simply reflective of demographics: “Most H-1Bs come from India because that’s literally where most of the highly skilled, highly educated, English-speaking humans in the world live,” one user wrote.
Others shifted the debate back to employers. Should criticism be aimed at Indian professionals themselves, or at American companies that choose to rely on them? As one comment put it: “So who should you be upset with, the Indians or the companies hiring them?”
A debate beyond numbers
The H-1B program has always balanced two competing priorities: securing the “best and brightest” from around the world and safeguarding opportunities for American workers. Girgis’s intervention brings that tension back into focus, not with policy papers but with a blunt statistic.
But statistics alone rarely tell the whole story. Whether the system truly rewards talent, or whether it simply rewards scale and cost-cutting, depends on perspective. For now, the number 73% is doing what numbers often do best: fueling arguments on all sides while leaving the harder questions unanswered.
A single country’s dominance
Girgis shared a Bloomberg graphic that underscored his claim. Between 2020 and 2023, India accounted for nearly 2.3 lakh H-1B approvals, close to three-quarters of the total. China followed with just 16.4%, while Canada stood at 3%.
For Girgis, the numbers pointed not to talent but to a structural skew. “This is not about diversity or shortages,” he wrote. “It’s a pipeline issue, a pipeline of cheap, compliant labour feeding outsourcing firms.”
Yet the same figures can be read differently: India’s overwhelming share may simply reflect its vast pool of English-speaking STEM graduates, a reality that does not necessarily vanish just because the statistic looks uneven.
What the H-1B is
The H-1B visa allows US employers to temporarily hire foreign professionals in specialised fields such as technology, engineering, medicine, and academia. Each year, around 85,000 new visas are issued through a lottery system, meant to ensure fairness in distribution. In principle, the program is designed to fill talent shortages and bring global expertise to American firms. In practice, some argue that it has become one of the most polarising tools in US immigration and labour policy.
Cost-cutting vs talent
The American ed-tech chairman sharpened his argument by pointing to salary data. In five out of six key tech roles, H-1B workers earned less than their US counterparts. “If they’re the ‘best and brightest,’ why the discount?” he asked.
But that framing is not without its blind spots. Salaries vary by geography, role, and seniority and not all “discounts” are evidence of weaker talent. The irony, critics point out, is that America’s tech industry has long benefited from this very talent pipeline, even while some of its voices decry it.
The lottery and its critics
The H-1B process begins with employers filing a Labour Condition Application, followed by a lottery and petition approval. In theory, the lottery ensures fairness. In practice, critics argue it has been distorted by large outsourcing firms submitting mass applications, crowding out smaller companies and domestic graduates.
Still, outsourcing firms appear to operate within the rules as written, and their success in the lottery largely reflects demand. If the pipeline flows so strongly from one country, it may be less a conspiracy and more a question of who is prepared, and in what numbers, to fill the roles.
A divided response online
Girgis’s post triggered sharp reactions. Supporters echoed his concern that the program sidelines US graduates. Detractors countered that India’s dominance is simply reflective of demographics: “Most H-1Bs come from India because that’s literally where most of the highly skilled, highly educated, English-speaking humans in the world live,” one user wrote.
Others shifted the debate back to employers. Should criticism be aimed at Indian professionals themselves, or at American companies that choose to rely on them? As one comment put it: “So who should you be upset with, the Indians or the companies hiring them?”
A debate beyond numbers
The H-1B program has always balanced two competing priorities: securing the “best and brightest” from around the world and safeguarding opportunities for American workers. Girgis’s intervention brings that tension back into focus, not with policy papers but with a blunt statistic.
But statistics alone rarely tell the whole story. Whether the system truly rewards talent, or whether it simply rewards scale and cost-cutting, depends on perspective. For now, the number 73% is doing what numbers often do best: fueling arguments on all sides while leaving the harder questions unanswered.
Next Story