Why the latest U.S. decision concerning Indian IT companies raises bigger questions about immigration, innovation, and the future of technology.
By Jaideep Parashar | October 11, 2026
When I read about the recent U.S. government’s decision to suspend major technology companies from its employment-based green card certification process, my first reaction was not anger.
It was curiosity.
What is America trying to achieve? What will this decision mean for Indian technology companies? And perhaps more importantly, how will it affect the people who have spent years building their careers and lives around the promise of working in the United States?
On October 8, 2026, the Trump administration suspended eight major technology companies from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) program.
The list includes Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro, HCL Technologies, Cognizant, Capgemini, Microsoft, and Adobe.
The U.S. Department of Labor announced that it would stop accepting new and processing pending PERM applications involving these companies. Officials cited concerns about the alleged misuse of employment-based immigration programs and the displacement of American workers.
Let me clarify something important.
U.S. Green Card Suspension does not mean a blanket ban on Indian IT companies, nor does it automatically invalidate existing H-1B visas.
The suspension concerns a specific process commonly used by employers sponsoring foreign professionals for permanent residency.
Nevertheless, I believe this decision deserves attention far beyond immigration policy.
Because underneath the headlines lies a much bigger question:
Can a country restrict the movement of skilled professionals without eventually affecting its own capacity for innovation?
I believe the answer is more complicated than either side of the debate may want to admit.
First, I Understand Why America Wants to Protect Its Workers
I am an Indian entrepreneur, but I don’t believe supporting Indian professionals requires dismissing American workers’ concerns.
Every government has a legitimate responsibility to protect its domestic workforce.
If an organization deliberately replaces qualified local employees with cheaper foreign workers to avoid paying competitive wages, that deserves investigation.
If companies misuse immigration systems or violate labor laws, those practices should be challenged.
I would apply the same principle in India.
But I also believe there is an important distinction between enforcing employment laws and treating international talent as an economic threat.
Those are not the same thing.
The U.S. administration has raised serious allegations about the misuse of employment-based visa programs. The affected companies and industry representatives have also offered responses, including arguments about compliance, local hiring, and the economic contributions of skilled immigrants.
Investigations should establish what actually happened.
We should not mistake an allegation for a proven finding, nor assume that every foreign professional is taking a job that would otherwise belong to a domestic worker.
A good employment system should protect workers from exploitation, regardless of their nationality.
That is the standard I would want any country to follow.
There Are Two Different Stories Here About U.S. Green Card Suspension
When we discuss the suspension, I think we need to separate the impact on companies from the impact on people.
These are two different conversations.
According to recent reporting, Indian IT companies have significantly reduced their reliance on PERM applications and H-1B visas over the years.
TCS has indicated that its limited recent use of PERM means it does not expect a major change to its workforce strategy or client engagements.
Infosys has also said that it does not anticipate a material impact on its operations.
From a business perspective, this suggests that the immediate financial damage to major Indian IT companies may be relatively limited.
But now consider an employee.
Imagine someone who moved to America years ago, built a career, started a family, purchased a home, and began planning for permanent residency.
Their employer’s quarterly financial performance might remain stable.
Their personal future, however, could suddenly become less predictable.
A delayed immigration process can affect career decisions, family planning, children’s education, and someone’s willingness to remain with an employer.
Existing immigration status and previously approved petitions may provide protections depending on the individual’s circumstances, but uncertainty itself carries a human cost.
A decision can be financially insignificant for a corporation and life-changing for an individual.
I think that distinction is being overlooked in much of the public conversation.
Technology Companies Don't Operate Within National Boundaries Anymore
As the founder of ReThynk AI, I spend considerable time studying how technological capabilities, organizations, and business models evolve.
One lesson has become increasingly clear to me.
Modern technology is not created inside one country, one office, or even one organization.
An American company might design a product in California, employ researchers in Europe, run development operations in India, manufacture hardware in Asia, and serve customers across the world.
This is not necessarily evidence of an unhealthy system.
It is how international specialization has developed over decades.
Of course, globalization has also created losers. Workers can experience displacement, communities can become dependent on particular industries, and businesses can misuse differences in labor costs.
Those concerns deserve serious attention.
But the solution is not necessarily to assume that domestic workers and international professionals are permanent opponents.
Sometimes they compete for the same opportunities.
Sometimes their contributions complement one another.
And sometimes bringing highly specialized expertise into an organization allows it to create products, expand operations, and employ more people.
The effects depend on the industry, wages, skills, and actual business practices.
This is why I would prefer immigration discussions to focus more on evidence than nationality.
I Think India Should Learn Something Important From This Decision
For decades, a significant part of India’s technology success has come from delivering services to organizations around the world.
Indian professionals have established themselves across software engineering, consulting, enterprise technology, research, and management.
That achievement deserves recognition.
But I also believe India must prepare for a different future.
One where our success is not measured primarily by how many professionals work for international companies or relocate overseas.
Instead, we should increasingly ask:
How much original technology are we building ourselves?
How many important AI models, platforms, robotics systems, industrial technologies, and globally competitive products are emerging from India?
How much intellectual property do our companies own?
How many Indian businesses are solving problems that customers worldwide are willing to pay to solve?
These questions matter to me personally.
My long-term vision for ReThynk AI includes moving beyond AI consulting and training toward original models, frameworks, edge computing, and robotics.
That direction reflects something I strongly believe:
India should not be satisfied with participating in the global technology economy. We should aim to create a larger share of its underlying technology.
This is not an argument against working overseas.
International experience, research collaboration, and professional mobility remain enormously valuable.
It is an argument for building more opportunities at home alongside those international opportunities. However, the next tech revolution may happen in your device and may not be in the cloud. Indian policy makers, leaders and administrators should also priorities leveraging these technical advancements.
AI Is Already Changing the Employment Equation
There is another dimension that I find particularly interesting.
The immigration debate is happening while artificial intelligence is beginning to transform technology employment itself.
AI-assisted coding, automated testing, software agents, and increasingly capable development tools are changing how technology companies organize work.
Nobody can confidently predict exactly how many jobs will disappear, evolve, or emerge over the next decade.
But I believe companies will increasingly reconsider what work needs to be done, which skills they require, and where employees need to be located.
In that environment, immigration restrictions may accelerate some decisions businesses were already considering.
A company facing greater difficulty relocating professionals could invest more in local hiring, distributed teams, remote delivery, or automation.
Those approaches are not interchangeable, and each comes with limitations.
But they reveal an important reality.
Restricting where people can work does not necessarily guarantee where the work itself will go.
Some jobs must be performed physically in a particular country.
Others can move across borders through software, communication, and digital infrastructure.
AI may make that distinction even more significant.
From my experience studying process excellence, I have learned that organizations adapt when one part of a process becomes more difficult or expensive.
Sometimes the adaptation produces the intended outcome.
Sometimes it creates an entirely different result.
That is why I would be cautious about assuming that tighter immigration restrictions will automatically translate into an equivalent increase in domestic employment.
My Suggestions for What Comes Next
I believe there are lessons for three groups.
For the U.S. government, protecting domestic workers and attracting skilled international professionals should not be treated as mutually exclusive goals. Employment rules should be enforced consistently, allegations should be examined fairly, and companies should have clarity about compliance requirements.
For Indian technology companies, regulatory uncertainty should become another reason to strengthen business resilience. That means building international teams, investing in original intellectual property, developing advanced technological capabilities, and avoiding excessive dependence on any single immigration route.
For Indian professionals, I would encourage building career flexibility rather than organizing an entire future around one employer, one visa category, or one country. Strong technical skills, industry knowledge, communication, professional networks, and the ability to work across cultures will remain valuable.
Individual immigration decisions, of course, require qualified professional advice.
But there is also a larger lesson for entrepreneurs.
International policy can change quickly.
A business model that depends heavily on rules outside your control may become vulnerable, even when the underlying business is healthy.
That is something every founder should understand.
The Bigger Question: Who Will Win the Global Talent Competition?
I don’t believe this is the end of Indian technology companies in America.
I also don’t believe the suspension will automatically create a wave of technology companies relocating to India.
Both predictions would be premature.
What I do believe is that the global competition for skilled people will continue.
Countries will compete to attract researchers, entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, and investors.
Companies will compete for the same talent.
And talented professionals will increasingly evaluate opportunities based on much more than salary.
They will consider career growth, institutional stability, family needs, research opportunities, immigration rules, and the ability to build a meaningful future.
The United States retains enormous strengths in universities, research, venture capital, technology companies, and entrepreneurial opportunities.
India has its own advantages, including a large technology workforce, expanding digital infrastructure, and opportunities to develop products for domestic and global markets.
Neither country’s future is determined by one immigration decision.
But the choices governments make today can influence where people decide to invest their talent tomorrow.
Final Thoughts
My view is simple.
America has every right to protect American workers. India has every reason to support Indian professionals. And technology companies have a responsibility to operate fairly in both countries.
Those principles can coexist.
The real challenge is creating policies that protect people without unnecessarily discouraging the innovation and international collaboration that contribute to economic growth.
As an entrepreneur and researcher, I have learned that successful systems cannot be judged by a single outcome.
A policy might appear successful because it reduces the number of foreign workers entering a particular employment process.
But its broader success should also be evaluated through wages, domestic employment, productivity, investment, innovation, and long-term competitiveness.
That is the larger conversation I would like to see.
Because ultimately, a country’s technological strength is not determined only by how many talented people it can keep out.
It is also determined by how many talented people it can develop, attract, retain, and empower to build something extraordinary.
And that, I believe, is where the real competition for the future will take place.
Recommended Articles: In the article, I have talked about multiple technologies and business aspects. Here are additional recommended articles to further enhance understanding.
2. We Are Not Ready for AI Agents With Real-World Access
3. The Next Interesting App Might Not Have A Screen
Jaideep Parashar
Director & Founder, ReThynk AI Innovation & Research Pvt Ltd