MSME Briefing Bureau

Will US visa curbs create jobs—or shift technology work overseas?

Washington wants American companies to employ more Americans. But if Indian technology professionals face tighter restrictions on working or securing permanent residency in the United States, how will their employers respond? Recruit locally, deliver more work from India, expand elsewhere or automate tasks? Each option carries different costs and consequences. The real test is whether immigration restrictions generate additional American jobs—or change where companies perform technology work without delivering the intended employment gains.

Beyond visas: a business strategy test

The US administration’s suspension of eight technology companies from the Permanent Labour Certification (PERM) programme raises a larger question for India’s IT industry: if access to skilled workers becomes more difficult, where will companies choose to perform the work?

The affected companies include Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, Wipro, HCLTech and Capgemini. The suspension affects new and pending applications under a process used in many employer-sponsored green-card cases.

This is not a blanket H-1B visa ban, nor does the suspension automatically cancel existing work authorisation or approved green cards. However, it adds uncertainty to a wider debate over the movement of skilled foreign professionals into the United States.

For Indian technology companies, the issue extends beyond immigration. It concerns recruitment, project delivery, investment and the economics of serving American clients.

Five questions Indian IT companies must answer

1. Will you hire more Americans?

One possible response is to recruit more US professionals. This could support domestic employment and help companies meet client requirements.

But would enough suitably qualified candidates be available? What would recruitment and training cost? Would clients accept higher project costs if local staffing became more expensive?

More American hiring is possible, but its scale cannot be assumed.

2. Could more work be delivered from India?

Indian IT companies have invested in offshore delivery capabilities over several decades. Some assignments currently handled at US client sites could potentially be reorganised and executed from India.

However, client confidentiality, data security, regulatory requirements and the need for on-site collaboration may limit this option.

The commercial question is how much work can move offshore without compromising service quality, productivity or client relationships.

3. Would companies expand elsewhere?

Companies could examine alternative locations offering suitable talent, infrastructure and access to clients. But establishing or expanding operations elsewhere involves tax, regulatory, recruitment and operating-cost considerations.

Changing the location of work is not a simple response to an immigration restriction. It requires a viable business case.

4. Could automation reduce the need to move people?

Artificial intelligence and automation may enable some tasks to be completed with smaller teams or different combinations of skills.

Companies could redesign workflows rather than replace every employee affected by restrictions. The impact, however, will differ across occupations. Automation cannot automatically substitute for specialist expertise or every client-facing role.

5. What happens to American jobs?

This is the central question for Washington. If companies recruit locally, domestic employment may benefit. If they move projects overseas, automate tasks or reduce investment, the outcome could be different.

A reduction in visa sponsorship does not prove that an equivalent number of American jobs has been created.

Hiring, wages, layoffs, investment and the location of work must be assessed separately.

India’s opportunity: more than offshore delivery

For India, the question is not simply whether tighter US immigration rules will bring more technology work home. It is what kind of work India will gain, how much value it will retain, and whether Indian companies can turn disruption into a strategic advantage.

If more projects are delivered from India, technology firms could expand engineering teams, specialist services and domestic recruitment. Professionals who return from the United States could bring client relationships, technical expertise and management experience. But these gains are not automatic. Companies may instead automate tasks, shift work to other countries or reduce recruitment if demand weakens.

There is a second, more fundamental concern. Indian IT companies could end up doing more work from India without gaining greater control over technology, intellectual property, pricing or client relationships. More offshore work does not necessarily mean more value captured by Indian businesses.

The opportunity, therefore, is to move beyond labour-cost advantages. Indian companies could invest in specialised engineering, AI implementation, cybersecurity, product development and industry-specific technology solutions—areas where expertise and intellectual property can strengthen their bargaining power with clients.

The Indian government and industry associations also face questions. Are domestic skills programmes aligned with the work that companies may bring back? Can returning professionals find roles that use their experience? Are Indian firms prepared to invest in higher-value capabilities rather than simply absorb additional project volumes?

For India’s smaller technology businesses and MSMEs, a shift in delivery models could create opportunities as larger firms outsource specialised assignments, develop local supplier networks or seek niche expertise. But this will depend on procurement access, quality standards, security requirements and the ability to compete with established suppliers.

The real Indian test is not how many professionals return from America or how much work moves offshore. It is whether India converts a change in US immigration policy into better jobs, stronger domestic capabilities and a larger share of the value created by global technology services.

Could America miss its employment objective?

That is a possibility worth examining, not a conclusion that can yet be assumed.

If companies hire and train more Americans, immigration restrictions could support domestic employment. If they move additional projects to India or other markets, the location of work could change without equivalent job creation in the United States.

Automation could further complicate the outcome by reducing the number of workers required for particular assignments. Meanwhile, higher staffing costs could influence client spending, project pricing and competitiveness.

The result will depend on companies’ actual decisions, the availability of skills and the commercial requirements of each project.

Ask the companies, not just the policymakers

Indian IT leaders should be asked directly: if US work-visa and permanent-residency restrictions tighten further, what is your contingency plan?

Would you recruit more Americans, expand offshore delivery, develop alternative locations or accelerate automation? Which options are commercially viable? What would determine your choices? And how might those decisions affect employment in India and the United States?

Their responses would help distinguish actual business plans from speculation.

The US administration can regulate access to its labour market. It cannot, through immigration rules alone, determine where multinational companies perform their work.

The real test is whether the restrictions create additional American jobs—or change the geography of technology services without delivering equivalent employment gains.