In a powerful rebuttal to growing nativist sentiments, a prominent right-wing voice in the United States has come out strongly in defence of Indian immigrants. Richard Hanania, an influential commentator, has labelled the increasing hostility towards this community as "the dumbest form of racism and socialism." His critique focuses on the conservative backlash against the H-1B visa programme, which he argues is driven more by cultural resentment than by sound economic principles.
Pushing Back Against Conservative Attacks on Indian Migration
In a detailed essay, Hanania directly challenges the narrative gaining traction in some sections of the US political right. This narrative often portrays Indian immigration, particularly through the H-1B skilled worker visa, as a problem causing job losses and suppressing wages for American tech professionals. The commentator firmly rejects these claims, stating they are built on flawed assumptions and unfairly single out a community known for its outsized contributions.
He highlights the historical perception of Indian and Indian-American communities as economically successful, socially stable, and high-achieving in education and employment. Despite this positive track record, Hanania notes a recent shift where Indian immigrants have become a specific target in the immigration debate. Several conservative figures have called for severe restrictions or even an end to the H-1B programme, alleging it harms American workers. The essay counters that traditional conservative concerns about immigration—such as crime, welfare dependence, and lack of assimilation—simply do not apply to the Indian demographic.
The Economic Fallacy Behind H-1B Opposition
At the core of Hanania's argument is what he calls a fundamental misunderstanding of labour economics. He dismantles the "lump of labour" fallacy—the idea that there is a fixed number of jobs in an economy that must be protected from outsiders. Instead, he posits that skilled immigration, far from shrinking opportunities, tends to expand entire industries.
The essay explains that high-skilled workers like those on H-1B visas increase overall productivity, drive innovation, and create additional employment by helping companies and markets grow. To blame Indian tech workers for wage pressure, Hanania contends, is to ignore the complex, broader economic forces shaping the modern labour market. He frames opposition to the programme as a form of protectionism that contradicts free-market principles, ultimately slowing economic growth and harming society.
A Moral Case Against Scapegoating
Beyond the economic reasoning, Hanania builds a moral argument against the scapegoating of Indian professionals. In today's globalised economy, he argues, competition is inevitable, especially in white-collar and technology-driven fields. Demanding government intervention to block foreign competitors reflects a sense of entitlement rather than a pursuit of fairness.
The author does acknowledge that the H-1B visa programme could benefit from reforms. However, he insists that the goal of any reform should be to attract the most productive global talent, not to restrict immigration altogether. By targeting a group with strong economic outcomes and low social costs, Hanania concludes that the anti-Indian sentiment represents a uniquely incoherent and misguided form of prejudice.
