US Congressman Riley Moore has alleged that H-1B visa holders are replacing American computer science graduates, claiming employers are hiring foreign workers because they are willing to accept lower wages. In a post on X, Moore described the H-1B visa and Optional Practical Training (OPT) programmes as “SCAMS”, alleging that they allow companies to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labour. “H-1B and OPT programs are SCAMS that undercut and replace American workers with cheap foreign labor,” Moore wrote. He claimed that around 650,000 Americans graduated with computer science-related degrees last year, while more than 500,000 H-1B visas were issued. “We had about 650,000 kids, give or take, graduate with computer science, computer programming degrees in this country last year, and then issued over half a million H-1B visas,” Moore said during an interview with Scott Jennings on The Scott Jennings Show, broadcast by the Salem News Channel. “They're willing to do these jobs at a lower rate, cheaper labor, and so all of our kids are getting replaced in this,” he alleged.
Moore argued that the H-1B programme, which is intended to help US employers recruit skilled foreign workers for specialised occupations, was not operating as originally presented. He said the programme was promoted as a way to bring highly skilled professionals into the country to fill positions that American employers could not staff with domestic workers. However, he alleged that companies were using it to hire cheaper foreign labour instead. “What it is, is importing cheap labor that is undercutting a lot of our young college graduates who are coming out of school with accounting degrees and other types of degrees, computer science, things like that, that are ready to enter the workforce,” he said. The congressman also claimed that H-1B visa holders bring family members to the US, linking the programme to what he described as “chain migration”. “And the typical H-1B visa holder, by the way, brings 10 individuals of their family with them. So you have this whole chain migration thing that goes with it,” Moore said. His remarks come amid continuing debate in the US over the impact of employment-based immigration on domestic workers and the technology sector.
Separately, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a regulatory change that could affect how applications to extend temporary work visas, including H-1B and L-1 visas, are assessed. The proposal seeks to remove a provision under 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) that requires US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to give deference to an earlier approval when an extension petition involves the same parties and underlying facts. Under the existing policy, immigration officers generally defer to a previous eligibility determination when reviewing a petition involving the same circumstances. Removing this requirement could allow officers to reassess eligibility even when an earlier application was approved under similar conditions. The proposed change has not yet been implemented. DHS is seeking public feedback on the proposed rulemaking package.
The debate is particularly significant for Indian professionals, who account for a majority of H-1B beneficiaries. According to USCIS data, Indian nationals made up roughly 70 per cent of all H-1B beneficiaries in fiscal year 2025. For many Indian technology workers, the H-1B visa is an entry point into a longer career in the US. The programme allows American employers to hire foreign professionals for specialised occupations, including roles in technology, engineering and other fields requiring specialised knowledge. The annual cap for new H-1B visas is 85,000, comprising 65,000 visas under the regular quota and an additional 20,000 for foreign graduates with advanced degrees from US universities. Certain employers and categories of workers are exempt from the cap. Moore's claims that American graduates are being replaced by H-1B workers reflect his criticism of the programme and its impact on the US workforce. His remarks add to the debate over whether the system is helping employers fill specialised roles or placing American workers at a disadvantage.
