Two decades of reporting, regulatory reviews, and worker advocacy reveal how employer-tied work visas and layered staffing arrangements have left many skilled migrants legally authorised to work abroad, yet economically insecure—raising shared questions of accountability for both India and the United States.

For many Indian families, skilled migration represents opportunity—better pay, global exposure, and long-term stability. For the United States, it promises access to specialised talent in a competitive economy.

Yet beneath this shared aspiration lies a quieter reality: a system that leaves many skilled professionals legally present abroad but economically vulnerable.

Debates around programmes such as the H-1B visa often polarise into openness versus restriction, or global talent versus domestic jobs. What this framing obscures is a deeper structural issue common to both countries.

At the centre of the system sits the employer-tied visa, where a worker’s legal status depends almost entirely on a single sponsor. That dependency reshapes power at work—and rarely in the worker’s favour.

What two decades of evidence have revealed

Over more than twenty years, journalists, regulators, and worker advocates have repeatedly surfaced the same concerns: restricted job mobility, opaque recruitment chains, weak enforcement, and the rise of intermediary staffing arrangements operating across borders.

Advocacy groups have documented these situations for over two decades, sharing worker testimony, contracts, and job advertisements with U.S. enforcement agencies.

From India’s side, risks often begin at recruitment—misleading job descriptions, inflated overseas promises, penalty clauses tied to early exit, and assurances that change once workers arrive abroad.

From the U.S. side, the same system appears as wage suppression, unpaid benching, and professionals passed between client sites through layers of staffing firms with little transparency. In both cases, workers remain authorised to stay, but lack the freedom to move.

When sponsorship is separated from real work

A defining feature of these arrangements is the separation between visa sponsorship and the workplace where labour is actually performed. Workers may be sponsored by one entity, deployed by another, and supervised by a third.

This fragmentation has enabled what observers describe as rampant visa shunting—the routine movement of workers across projects, locations, and intermediaries with minimal control or consent.

Practices such as visa banking and speculative sponsorship were flagged years ago as structural, not exceptional. In many cases, visas are sponsored before confirmed roles exist, routed through offshore recruitment channels, and activated only after arrival—often under changed or less favourable terms.

When projects end or clients disengage, workers bear the risk, remaining legally present but without pay, assignments, or a sponsoring employer able to place them in stable work.

Visa orphans and the limits of enforcement

These breakdowns frequently produce what advocates describe as alarming visa orphans—skilled professionals left racing against narrow deadlines to find new employment after a placement collapses.

While existing rules prohibit many abusive practices, enforcement often arrives long after the harm is done. Oversight relies heavily on complaints, and only a small fraction of sponsoring entities are reviewed in any given year. Where staffing agencies sponsor visas without providing stable, direct employment, accountability becomes diffuse and responsibility easy to evade. The result is a system that appears regulated on paper but fragile in practice.

A shared responsibility to fix the structure

Recent policy changes—higher visa fees and adjusted selection criteria—acknowledge mounting concern, but largely address who enters the system rather than what happens after arrival. They do little to resolve the core flaw: *legal status remains tied to the sponsor, not to genuine, ongoing employment.*

India, meanwhile, points to record remittances as evidence of success, yet these figures obscure private costs—debt-financed migration, sudden job loss, and forced return. Despite being the largest source of skilled migrants globally, India lacks a public mechanism to track abusive recruiters or repeat offenders.

Comparative experience suggests a clearer path. Countries such as Canada and Australia prioritise sponsorship by direct employers and allow skilled migrants greater job mobility while maintaining labour-market safeguards. The principle is simple: *work visas should be anchored to real jobs, not controlled through intermediaries.*

The way forward is not to close doors, but to restore credibility. That requires limiting visa sponsorship to employers who actually provide the work, strengthening oversight of cross-border recruitment, and ensuring that opportunity does not depend on silence. Skilled migration can remain a source of shared growth—but only if dignity and accountability travel with the worker.

END OF ARTICLE