2 days Ago By Firstpost
The clash over H-1B visas in MAGA circles is a mirror reflecting America’s deepest anxieties and aspirations. At its heart, this fight is about who gets to belong, who deserves opportunity, and how America sees itself in an increasingly interconnected world. When Laura Loomer described skilled Indian immigrants as “invaders”, it was more than a xenophobic comment.
It was a window into the fractures running through American society. There are three key lenses through which this could be seen. First is the inherent racism within the MAGA circle.
Let’s not mince words: the backlash against H-1B visa holders has a racial undercurrent. The framing of immigrants as a threat to American jobs” is not new. It is a rerun of the same playbook used against waves of Chinese labourers, Irish workers, and Jewish professionals.
Racism thrives on the fear of the other, and in this case, it’s the highly skilled, tech-savvy immigrant who becomes the target. But here’s the irony—these immigrants represent the best of what America claims to value: hard work, ingenuity, and innovation. They’ve built Silicon Valley, developed life-saving drugs, and driven economic growth.
Yet, in MAGA narratives, they are reduced to threats. The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah speaks of “rooted cosmopolitanism,” the idea that people can embrace their identities while contributing to a global community. America, at its best, embodies this ideal.
The current debate, however, shows how easily that vision can be overshadowed by fear and division. The second lens is that of meritocracy. Vivek Ramaswamy’s critique—“celebrating prom queens over math Olympiad champs”—captures the cultural tension at the heart of the MAGA critique of the H-1B visa program.
The program, designed to attract global STEM talent, is framed as a cornerstone of a meritocratic economy. Yet critics argue it undermines American workers and traditional industries, revealing a deeper conflict between a global vision of meritocracy and a nationalist ethos of self-reliance. This is more than an economic argument.
It reflects cultural anxieties about identity and the kind of excellence a society chooses to reward. Ramaswamy’s point sharpens the question: what does merit mean, and who defines it? The H-1B program prioritizes technical skills—particularly in STEM fields—that align with global economic demands, assuming that talent and expertise can be evaluated independent of national or cultural boundaries. This framing reflects a universalist vision of merit, one that values contributions based on their ability to drive innovation and economic growth.
However, MAGA critics argue for a different standard, one where merit is not just about skills or economic utility but also about reinforcing national identity and cultural cohesion. This divergence exposes a fundamental tension in the philosophy of meritocracy. A universal meritocracy seeks to create a borderless marketplace of talent, rewarding individuals based solely on their abilities.
In contrast, a nationalist view of meritocracy prioritizes the integration of individual excellence into a shared cultural and societal framework. The H-1B debate thus becomes a battleground for these competing visions. It raises uncomfortable but essential questions: should meritocracy aim to attract the best talent from anywhere, or should it primarily elevate the capabilities and potential of those already within its borders? The third and final lens is that of Inward-Looking Politics.
The MAGA movement’s hostility to immigration reflects a broader inward turn in American politics. The promise of “America First” is seductive—who wouldn’t want their country to prioritize its own citizens? But this vision is fundamentally flawed. The truth is, America’s greatness has always been built on openness.
From the transcontinental railroads constructed by immigrant labor to the tech revolution fueled by foreign-born entrepreneurs, America’s strength lies in its ability to harness global talent. Turning inward may feel like protection, but it’s actually self-sabotage. Economists consistently show that restricting skilled immigration drives innovation and jobs overseas—to Canada, India, and even China.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt warned of the dangers of isolationism, arguing that societies thrive not by building walls but by engaging with the world. The philosopher Zygmunt Bauman described globalization as a force that creates winners and losers, often within the same society. For every tech billionaire who benefits from H-1B visas, there’s a factory worker who feels left behind.
This divide fuels resentment, which populist movements like MAGA exploit. But rejecting globalization is not a solution. But does this mean the Indian government should intervene? Absolutely not.
The government should resist the urge to lobby for more H-1B visas or seek changes in U.S. visa policies, as such efforts misallocate scarce negotiating capital and yield diminishing returns.
The U.S. already issues a significant number of work visas to Indian professionals due to its own demographic gaps and market demands.
Any direct intervention by the Indian government—such as requesting special accommodations—would likely require a trade-off, forcing India to concede something more valuable in return. Moreover, the global economy is moving toward digital service delivery, a trend significantly accelerated by the pandemic. Physical worker mobility is no longer as critical as it once was, with leading Indian IT firms already reducing their reliance on H-1B visas.
Prioritising visa issues with any country detracts from the opportunity to secure meaningful concessions in goods, services, and digital trade and risks subsidizing the flight of Indian human capital. In the end, this isn’t a policy argument. It is a cultural one, laying bare how the fear of the “other” continues to shape the MAGA worldview.
Genuine economic concerns don’t drive the opposition to H-1B visas—data consistently shows that skilled immigrants create jobs, drive innovation, and strengthen industries. Instead, it stems from a deeper anxiety about identity and belonging, where highly skilled Indian professionals are portrayed as existential threats rather than contributors to a shared future. The MAGA narrative, cloaked in economic populism, reveals itself as less about protecting American workers and more about preserving a narrow, exclusionary vision of what America should be.
By clinging to these fears, it undermines the very openness and diversity that have always been America’s greatest strengths. Aditya Sinha (X:@adityasinha004) is a public policy professional. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author.
They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views..
