> outsources its IT work to an Indian company, Infosys Infosys was also under scrutiny for the same visa fraud that's mentioned in this same article. They sett

> outsources its IT work to an Indian company, Infosys Infosys was also under scrutiny for the same visa fraud that's mentioned in this same article. They settled out of court for $34 million while claiming they just wanted to avoid "prolonged litigation". But it's just a PR stunt - Infosys' visa fraud is rather well-known, colloquially. While it's an Indian-based company, it is a multinational company that also operates within the United States. It's part of the biggest problem with H-1B visas, in that it hires almost entirely H-1B visa workers with tailored positions and then "hires" the staff out through consulting contracts. It does this to artificially suppress wages while taking a hefty profit. Tata, another Indian multinational company, does the same thing. (http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-program/ http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-pro...). It's one thing to offshore work to a foreign company with contracts. That ship sailed decades ago, and, for all its faults in execution, it helped a lot of countries build their economies. Including India. But it's another to hire only offshore workers, bring them locally, and then replace local workers with those contracts. There's no justifiable reason if local people can do it - it's just labor and wage exploitation. No one's got a problem with skilled workers migrating and taking jobs. Plenty of people move around the world for that. That mobility is a nice thing. But the H-1B is a system designed to facilitate this migration while protecting industry wages. Yet it's being abused by companies to artificially control wages with fake claims of labor shortage. So it deserves all the scrutiny we can muster. The program should stay. But it needs much more oversight. > And if xenophobic and protectionist polices It's not xenophobic. There's a huge Indian population locally in the US, as well, and many of them dislike H-1B abuse. Countries are supposed to protect their local labor pool and economy or they'll face some very difficult times. That said, there has to be a balance in tariffs and immigration laws for proper trade. > Google's Android biggest growth region is India. Why shouldn't then Indians work in Google? Maybe Google should move its headquarters from MV to Bangalore. Alphabet can remain in US. There's a strong claim for having local offices when companies do a large amount of business locally. Google and many other companies do that. Last year they announced that they're opening a second office in Bangalore. But they also sell to many other countries outside of India. A local office is one thing, but moving headquarters is another. India's economic impact isn't really enough to force the entire company to move. You're also ignoring the fact that countries specialize and then trade. Specialization and trade end up being cheaper in many ways than generalization. It's perfectly normal for countries to have a particular product or service that they're known for. Trade agreements are generally structured so that those countries can protect foreign competition in local specialties, while enabling greater exports with lower tariffs for those specialties. It just so happens that Tata and Infosys grew out of this practice (where they exported labor services). If anything, you're showing a strong nationalist agenda by claiming that only your country should be able to control foreign products while exporting local specialties, and that all foreign companies should use as much local resources as possible on foreign soil just because they profit from your market. It's not xenophobia, but it's certainly a lot closer to it than insisting that companies don't abuse visa programs to avoid paying local market wages. You should probably take a step back and realize that this is a labor and economic issue, and not a cultural/racial issue.