The manufactured myths of 'high skill' and 'labor shortage'

Bahar claimed "firms in the United States … were not able to fill those vacancies in the local markets and therefore they are asking the government through a visa process to let them bring a foreign worker who will be able to fill that vacancy." That statement ignores years of documented cases where H-1B workers weren't brought in to fill shortages; they were brought in to replace Americans at lower cost.

In 2015, Disney made headlines when American IT employees were ordered to train their own H-1B replacements supplied by HCL. At Southern California Edison, hundreds of U.S. tech workers were displaced by imported contractors. The University of California required staff to train incoming HCL hires. AT&T, fresh off a $3 billion tax break, outsourced 16,000 American jobs and shut down 44 call centers. At Bank of America, employees were forced to train their replacements, a practice the company called "essential for knowledge transfer."

These are not isolated anecdotes, but are part of a pattern: American workers are displaced while visa pipelines remain open and expanding.

Yet Bahar, arguing that the program is small and beneficial, insists the H-1B is a "high-skilled" program concentrated in technology and high-tech industries. It's true that computer-related jobs make up over 60% of H-1B roles, but that's not because of a lack of American talent. It's because outsourcing firms have captured the system. Studies show 94% of Indian engineering graduates lack employable skills and fewer than 5% can complete a basic programming task. Still, Indian nationals now dominate the vast majority of H-1B approvals, particularly in the very tech jobs U.S. graduates are losing.

Supporters often frame H-1B hiring as access to rare, high-end talent. But the government's own numbers show otherwise. Employers must classify H-1B jobs under one of four wage levels: Level 1 (entry-level) through Level 4 (experienced professional). Employer records reveal that 83% of H-1B registrations fall into Levels I and II, both below the U.S. median wage.

In computer and math occupations, the largest category, 271,000 of 315,000 filings were placed at these lowest tiers. In business and finance, nearly 80% fell into the same category. Across the top five industries, as little as 14% reached the higher wage levels.

If the H-1B truly addressed "rare shortages," employers would be offering higher wages, not lower ones. Instead, the filings cluster at the bottom, proof that the program isn't about innovation or scarcity. It's about cost-cutting. The H-1B system has become a corporate discount program, replacing qualified Americans with cheaper labor under the false promise of "global competitiveness."

Admitting the truth

When asked whether the U.S. is capable of producing its own talent, Bahar framed the issue as a question of global competition, arguing that America must "produce at a lower cost" to remain competitive and that "foreigners bring the experience and know-how" to make that possible.

That statement reveals more than he likely intended. It's the quiet confession of the globalist mindset, one that measures strength not by independence, innovation or self-sufficiency, but by how cheaply Americans can be replaced. Bahar's argument reduces U.S. competitiveness to labor cost, not capability. It's the same justification multinational corporations have used for decades to offshore manufacturing jobs to China and now white-collar careers to India.

By that logic, America's future depends on importing low-cost talent instead of investing in its own people, which isn't competition – it's capitulation. The notion that "the most talented people around the world want to come to the U.S." may sound flattering, but it's strategically misleading. The H-1B system doesn't primarily attract the best and brightest; it imports the cheapest and most compliant. The majority of these workers are funneled through outsourcing and body-shop firms whose sole purpose is to undercut U.S. wages while transferring intellectual property, data and innovation abroad.

Bahar's rhetoric, "produce at a lower cost," is the exact phrase global consulting firms use in their offshoring manuals. It's the vocabulary of de-industrialization, the same reasoning that hollowed out America's factories, small towns and middle class. Only now it's being repackaged as a "high-tech" strategy to justify the same betrayal under a new name.

If America's path to "global competitiveness" is to pay its engineers, programmers and analysts less, then the model itself is broken. True strength lies in raising American capability, not in racing to the bottom of the global wage scale. A nation that can build rockets, power grids and AI systems certainly doesn't need to outsource its intelligence. What it needs is leadership willing to defend it.

The false gospel of 'global competitiveness'

Asked whether Trump's higher H-1B fees might strain U.S.-India relations, Bahar's focus turned immediately to tariffs and "integration into the global economy." He warned that such policies could make relationships "difficult" and suggested that America's effort to protect its own labor force amounts to "isolation."

That framing exposes the real priority – not the wellbeing and prosperity of American workers, but the preservation of India's economic access to the United States. Bahar wasn't warning about harm to diplomacy; he was lamenting a threat to a system that allows India to extract jobs, wages and intellectual property from America under the label of "partnership."

By calling efforts to secure American industry "isolation," Bahar mirrors the same rhetoric used for decades by multinational lobbyists and foreign trade groups. The message is always the same: Global integration equals progress and any defense of national interest is regression. But behind that polished language lies a stark reality: dependence. The more America "integrates," the more it is outsourcing its production, its workforce and its sovereignty to nations that view the U.S. market as an economic feeding ground.

India's dominance in the H-1B system isn't a side effect of globalization, it's the centerpiece of a deliberate strategy. Through aggressive lobbying, trade negotiations and influence networks like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), India has built its economic growth model on exporting its labor while importing America's wealth. Bahar's comments align neatly with that strategy: Pressure U.S. policymakers to keep the pipeline open, label resistance as "isolation," and frame dependence as "cooperation."

However, what he calls diplomacy is, in reality, dependency and what he calls integration is the erosion of economic sovereignty. Protecting American workers from systemic displacement isn't isolationism; it is survival. A strong nation trades on fair terms. A captured one bargains away its future.

The human cost of corporate globalism

The victims of this system are not theoretical. Across the country, thousands of U.S. professionals have been forced to train their own replacements, foreign contractors imported through the same visa channels Bahar praises. At Disney, Southern California Edison and Bank of America, American employees were replaced en masse, their experience devalued and their loyalty betrayed.

When Texas-based employers chase low-cost foreign labor, they aren't just saving a dollar, they're putting American families' livelihoods on the line. The surge of visa-driven recruiting and corporate outsourcing across the Lone Star State signals a profound shift – away from American workers and toward offshore profit. And everyday Texans are paying the price.

Bahar called the H-1B program a gateway for "high-skilled workers" that helps the U.S. "stay competitive globally." But as the interview progressed, he repeated the same talking points – the "small program" myth, the "shortage" excuse and the "high-skill" trope, recycled lines that have been used for years to sanitize exploitation.

That's why dismantling these myths with verifiable data, hard evidence and documented harm is no longer optional; it's a national imperative. Because until the truth is restored, it won't be foreign contractors or corporate lobbyists who pay the price. It will be Americans, the very people the U.S. government's system was supposed to protect, who lose their jobs, their futures and their country's promise, one "visa" at a time.