The Green Card Drag: How Highly Skilled Asian Indian Immigrants Experience the US Immigration System

Abstract

Foreign-born Asian Indians in the United States are among the most highly educated and highly paid. A major facilitator of this population's migration has been the H-1B, a temporary work visa that has brought in foreign scientists and engineers since 1990. Immigration scholarship would regard H-1Bs’ high socioeconomic status as a factor that smooths their integration. Yet an aspect usually not associated with high-skilled migrants–legality–may be compromising the assimilation of Asian Indian professionals: over a million are “waiting in line,” or in queue, for legal permanent residency. The delay is significant. Asian Indians have the longest wait among all nationalities, and it is only becoming increasingly longer; scholars argue that many Asian Indians, especially newcomers, will never get a green card. Drawing on 40 semi-structured interviews with US technology workers from India, the following study is among the first of its kind: it examines how Asian Indians’ experience their temporary status, or “liminal legality.” Findings show that they encounter “legal dragging”: they are in line for a green card but are given no specific acquisition date. The legal dragging of the green card process leads to feelings of stagnation, uncertainty, and frustration. Furthermore, these feelings are gendered: women experience the additional worry of having to go back to a country where they will encounter greater gender inequality. Findings illustrate that legal status plays a role in Asian Indian lives and that it can impede on the mobility of the highly skilled.

Keywords

H-1B liminal legality Asian Indian green card gender

Introduction

Foreign-born Asian Indians are among the most highly educated and highly paid in the United States (Tran, Lee and Huang 2019). Far above the averages for other immigrant and native-born groups, 80 percent of foreign-born Asian Indians hold a college degree and earn incomes double that of their immigrant and native-born counterparts (Hoffman and Batalova 2022). Given Asian Indian immigrants’ high socioeconomic status (SES), assimilation theories would assume relative ease in their integration, at least vis-à-vis their lower SES counterparts.

Yet the legal status of Asian Indians puts into question the limits of SES. Hundreds of thousands of Asian Indians are in a state of what can be considered “liminal legality” (Bier 2020; Menjívar 2006)—that is, they occupy an “in-between” space in which they are documented but not permanent (Menjívar 2006, 1000).

Since 1990, but particularly after 2000, Asian Indians have entered the United States en masse as temporary workers via the H-1B program and have constituted the majority of H-1B migrants since the visa's inception (Banerjee 2006; Desai, Kapur and McHale 2001; Kerr and Lincoln 2010; Lowell 2000).¹ Millions have begun the green card process to change their status to a permanent one but must wait years due to US immigration policies (Bier 2020).

There are no limits on the number of H-1Bs awarded by national origin. However, there are for employment-based green cards.² For each preference category, no more than 7 percent of green cards available can be given to one nationality.³ In 2023, from India alone, there were over 400,997 approved legal permanent residency (LPR) petitions under the EB-2 and 136,388 under the EB-3 category (USCIS 2023).⁴ Needless to say, the allocation of 7 percent of total green cards to EB-2 and EB-3 Asian Indian applicants—fewer than 3,000 in each category—falls far short of meeting the group's demand for LPR.

Drawing on 40 semi-structured interviews with technology workers in the United States, we examine Asian Indian professionals’ experiences with the H-1B to green card process. Our findings demonstrate that the state drags migrants: immigration policies make H-1Bs eligible for LPR but provide no definite acquisition date. Because of this, green card petitioners do not know if, and when, they will become permanent. The drag leads to feelings of stagnation, uncertainty, and frustration. In addition, these feelings are gendered: women experience the additional worry of having to go back to a country where they will encounter greater gender inequality. Findings illustrate that legal status plays a significant role in Asian Indian immigrants’ emotional lives.

Asian Indians: US Immigration and the H-1B to Green Card Pathway

Asian Indians are the largest Asian American group in the United States (Rico, Hahn and Spence 2023). Despite their large numbers, much less research has been done on this group (Sabharwal and Varma 2015; Sabharwal and Varma 2017; Sabharwal, Varma and Noor 2021; Toma and Villares-Varela 2019). Often, scholars conflate Asian Indians with other Asian American groups (see Tran 2024). To be sure, there are many characteristics that Asian Indians share with other Asian Americans: the migration of the highly educated post-1965, their high SES vis-à-vis non-Hispanic whites and other immigrant groups, and the academic achievements of their second-generation children (Lee and Zhou 2015; Tran, Lee and Huang 2019; see also Gavigan 2021). However, their migration has its distinctions: the rise of Asian Indians is a recent phenomenon, with many arriving in the United States in and after the year 2000; their concentration in information technology and engineering; and, as this paper discusses, their disproportionate numbers among H-1B visa holders and green card applicants.

Many Asian Indians have held the H-1B. For example, in 2023, almost 300,000 approved H-1B petitions were from India. The H-1B is an attractive visa for the highly skilled. To name one reason, migrants can earn more money in the United States than they would in their home country. Another reason is the opportunity to obtain LPR in the United States. As H-1Bs, they are among a “special class” of temporary workers who can apply for a green card (Stonawski 2013, 234).⁵ Because of this, many H-1B visa holders expect that they will eventually obtain a green card (see Varma 2020).

While waiting for a green card, many H-1Bs maintain their legal status by extending their visa. The H-1B is valid only for a maximum of six years and can only be extended through an employer. In addition, migrants must have employer sponsorship to remain in the United States.

H-1B policies create a number of issues for workers. Often, H-1Bs feel compelled to remain with their current employer. Employers determine a migrant's place in the green card line. The day the employer files the I-140 is the worker's “priority date.”⁶ Leaving the employer may mean abandoning one's place in the queue.⁷ In addition, quitting a job means that they would have to find another employer—and one who will sponsor them—within 60 days. If they cannot, they must leave. To be sure, H-1Bs’ dependence on their employers makes them vulnerable to exploitation (Savinar 2022; Varma 2020).

Another issue is international travel. H-1Bs cannot travel outside the United States if their H-1B status has expired and their extension is still pending, or if they are in the process of transferring jobs. Furthermore, if an H-1B employee's job is terminated, they must secure new employment in other eligible categories (e.g., family-based, victims of abuse, or refugees and asylees) (USCIS 2022), with an employer willing to sponsor their visa within 60 days; otherwise, they must leave the country (USCIS 2024a).

Without LPR, temporary workers remain vulnerable to their employers and the immigration system. This is true of all temporary workers. However, what is not true for all is the time they must wait for a green card. Asian Indians are distinct in this respect. They encounter an acutely prolonged state of temporariness, or, what we discuss next, liminal legality.

Liminal Legality

Immigration scholars have examined the effects legal status has on the everyday lives of migrants. Much attention has been given to the undocumented population (e.g., Aranda and Vaquera 2015; Chauvin and Garces-Mascarena 2014; Golash-Boza and Valdez 2018). One would argue rightfully so: they face incredible insecurity and are in constant fear of deportation (García 2018; Jefferies 2014; Lopez et al. 2018).

Researchers have studied another group affected by legality: liminally legal migrants. Cecilia Menjívar (2006) has introduced the term liminal legality in her work on Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants. Many of these migrants have not been able to obtain a permanent legal status because of, in large part, US government's reluctance to recognize them as political refugees. Consequently, Salvadoran and Guatemalans often face the threat of deportation. To maintain their (temporary) status, they must navigate US's complicated, often in flux, immigration system (Pierce 2019; Massey 2020; Schuck 1992).

Asian Indians’ liminal legality offers the opportunity to broaden our understanding of the ways in which class intersects with legal status. To be sure, Asian Indians do not encounter the same vulnerabilities that more socioeconomically disadvantaged populations do. Yet the focus of this paper is not to measure who suffers the most from their liminal legality. Instead, our focus is to understand how Asian Indians experience their legality and what their experiences tell us about SES, legal status, and the US immigration system.

Research on Asian Indians on the H-1B has revealed the broad reach of the nation-state and its policies have on the lives of visa holders and their families. Pallavi Banerjee (2022) found that spouses of H-1B visa holders—most of whom are women—experience downward mobility; they often finished college and worked as professionals back in India. As dependents in the United States, many stayed home to care for children and the household and often resented their new role in the United States as an “H-4 mother” (Banerjee 2022, 193). Research on Asian Indian H-1B visa holders and their families, such as that of Pallavi Banerjee, illustrates that even the high-skilled, high-earning professionals such as Asian Indians on the H-1B are sure to face issues stemming from their liminal legality. The following work examines this.

Data and Methodology

This study comes from a larger bi-national project on Asian Indian professionals in India and the United States.⁸ This article focuses on the respondents who were currently living in the United States. The paper examines the following questions: What is the legal status of Asian Indian professionals? How do they feel about their legal status? What have they experienced in the United States, particularly with the country's immigration processes and procedures? Do they plan on staying in the United States or going back to India? To answer these questions and understand how legality affects Asian Indian lives, the work utilizes a phenomenological approach (Alase 2017). Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. Interviews enabled researchers to examine what participants thought and how they felt about their liminally legal status (Choi, Kim and Jones 2023).

To qualify for the study, respondents must have been born in India and had worked in the United States as a scientist or engineer for at least 3 years.⁹ To recruit participants, researchers drew from their personal networks.¹⁰ Snowball sampling was also used (see Chavez 2021). The result of the recruitment efforts garnered a total of 40 study participants.

Interviews were conducted by two researchers between 2017 and 2019. Both were “insider- outsiders” (Dwyer and Buckle 2009): they were Asian Indian immigrants and had worked in the United States as professionals.¹¹ They were able to relate to the respondents as they, too, have navigated the US immigration system. This built rapport and trust between themselves and the respondents (see Roberts 2014). Interview transcripts were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using NVivo. An inductive coding strategy was implemented using elements of grounded theory. For example, the data, and not the hypotheses, informed codes and categories (see Charmaz 1996, 28).

Two coders independently coded the transcriptions. Themes emerged regarding the legal process, everyday life, and gender.

The sample was constituted by more men than women, 28 (70 percent) and 12 (30 percent), respectively. This is reflective of gender disparities among STEM workers.¹² The time interviewees had been in the United States ranged from 3 to 36 years; the average was 11 years. Many had arrived as graduate students in their 20s—the student visa is a common route among H-1B holders (see Varma 2020).¹³ At the time of the interview, most participants were in their 30s; all were either on or had been on the H-1B visa.¹⁴ Eight were citizens and seven held green cards. The majority of respondents were on the H-1B (n = 25, 62.5 percent). Those who were currently on the H-1B had been in the United States for an average of 8 years. The average length of time in the United States for citizens in our sample was 21 years, and for green card holders, 11.5 years. Most were married, including those on the H-1B (23 out of the 25). H-1Bs were less likely than citizens and green card holders to have children. This may be a result of their temporary legal status, but it also may be due to their relatively young age; H-1Bs tended to be younger than those in the other two groups. H-1Bs had been in their current job position between less than a year to 9 years.¹⁵^,¹⁶

Findings

The literature on Asian Indians often gives the impression that their integration is relatively smooth as a result of, in large part, their high SES. What our study illustrates is that they, in fact, encounter issues despite their SES. Their temporary legal status, coupled with the US's green card policies, impedes on their ability to establish stable, secure personal and professional lives, which, as the interviews reveal, they desire for themselves and their families. That gaining permanent legal status is indefinite and for long periods of time, the lives of Asian Indian professionals in the green card process have been marked by feelings of immobility, worry, and frustration.

Stuck on the H-1B: Immobility Among Indian Immigrants

Rules and regulations of the H-1B placed considerable limitations on Asian Indians’ occupational mobility. Because of this, many participants felt held back professionally. For example, Jayanth, an engineer, explained,

I don’t want H-1B restrictions on me…. A person on H-1B is not as independent as a person with a green card or is a citizen. That person cannot just leave a job and go to some other place and start another job or pursue a better opportunity for them.

Ravi, a software development engineer, felt similarly; he described the process of being hired at a new company as “a big hassle.”

As H-1Bs’ legal status is dependent on their employer, getting a new job has its complications. Siddharth, a senior product manager, believed changing employers would make the visa process difficult:

When you leave a job, when you want a new job, you have to wait one and a half months until you join the new job. This is because your H1 is in process. It takes… 15 to 20 days to process the new premium and they usually take one or two weeks. Before that, the lawyers have to prepare the papers. So, it usually takes a month or a month and a half. (Interviewer: So you are jobless?) No, no. You are still with the old company. The only problem is, let's say you decide today that you want to leave this company. So, first, is you have to find a job. Once you find a job you have to stay with your current employer for at least a month and a half expecting that the other company has sponsored you. So, the new company will start a visa process. You can’t resign from your current job until approval comes from that side [or the new job].

Waiting for a new visa for the new employer takes time. And during that time, immigrants feel that they have to keep their current jobs to “stay legal” (see Tucket 2015). This is particularly painful for Varun, an application engineer: “If you’re in a bad job…you’re stuck with it. There's no bigger punishment than that.”

Researchers have found that Asians in the United States are kept from upward mobility at work because of anti-Asian discrimination (Chin 2020; Shao 2023). The data here illustrates another factor of Asian immobility: their legal status vis-à-vis the visa system. Under the H-1B, these highly skilled, highly educated Asian Indian professionals hit, as scholars have described, the “bamboo ceiling”; their visa status restricts their ability to get better, more desirable jobs (Chin 2020; Hyun 2006). Research has examined how undocumented immigrants are restricted by the labor market and face pressure to stay in jobs that are low-paying, exploitative, and dangerous due to their legal status (Yoshikawa 2011; see also Flynn, Eggerth and Jacobson 2015). The experiences of H-1Bs from India demonstrate that liminally legal migrants—even the most highly educated and high-paying ones—also feel “stuck.” H-1B visa holders face challenges when seeking job satisfaction and career advancement. The inability to freely switch jobs, coupled with the difficulty of finding new employment without a green card, restricts their professional options, and hampers their ability to pursue better opportunities. Consequently, they may find themselves stuck in unsatisfying jobs, unable to make the necessary changes to improve their work and life circumstances.

Respondents of the study also felt trapped in the United States; traveling abroad while on the H-1B was not worth potentially risking their legal status. A concern was that their visa would expire while they were away. While a visa can be renewed if an H-1B immigrant is abroad, to do so requires coordination between worker and employer as well as weeks of waiting. The uncertainty of maintaining legal status for Indian immigrants has led their lawyers to advise them not to travel. Siddharth speaks on this; for him, getting approval to travel from US Customs and Border Protection (via the I-94 form) creates a burden and discourages him from going to India:

You can’t go out of the country because you have to file another H-1B because you have to get your I-94 for that H-1B filing. You are mostly stuck here. The lawyers don’t recommend you going out, of course. (Interviewer: Imagine there's an emergency back in India.) In those cases, you can go but you have to show lots of papers.

Siddharth highlights the potential risks that deter visa holders from going to India, even for family emergencies. This shows that immigrants on the H-1B visa are a vulnerable group, subjects of the immigration system. Another participant, Sweta, a neuroscientist, also explained being bogged down by the process of traveling abroad. She described, “I do not want to travel because I do not want to take on the hassle. My mobility has been incredibly restricted. I would have done a lot more but, because of the visa status, I cannot.”

Traveling for leisure also poses challenges for Indian immigrants in the green card queue. Alok, an IT technician, expressed the difficulties of going on trips on the visa:

I want to be able to take and go for a quick vacation to Canada or somewhere else, but I can't do that because I got to take a visa and make sure that I have to get a stamp done (for re-entry) to return to the U.S.

The visa requirements and the need to obtain re-entry stamps create barriers that make travel difficult and burdensome, restricting their ability to enjoy leisure travel. These restrictions not only disrupt personal travel plans but also limit the fulfillment of important family and social obligations for H-1B visa holders.

The experiences of Asian Indians with the green card drag illustrate what Pallavi Banerjee (2022) argues about the US visa system, that it is, in fact, a visa regime. Within this system, immigrants are subjects that are controlled and manipulated by state policies and regulations. The restrictions of the H-1B create conditions that compel, if not force, immigrants to stay in their jobs and in the United States when they would rather not.

Uncertainty

Unsurprisingly, the long and indefinite wait time the green card drag requires builds worry in the lives of Indian immigrants. Many spoke of uncertainty; they were not sure how their lives would turn out. Varun, for example, explained,

At this point, I have mixed feelings. I don’t know if I will be going to India tomorrow, or not. Because right now, I don’t know. I only have an H-1 visa. I don’t know what is going to happen in the future.

Aarti, an engineer who has been in the United States for 11 years, explained that she “panics” when her company goes through a recession: “The only problem happens when the company is going through a recession. I mean you always panic, thinking about what you do. That is one concern or one fear I have.… You are tied to the job for your status here.” Neha, a software engineer, felt very uneasy being on the H-1B. She shared,

There is this fear that you don’t feel comfortable ever in this place because you might just have to leave. It's temporary, especially in the recent political environment. I don’t know how long I’ll be here. I might have to go tomorrow.

Neha is worried that she will never feel safe and secure in the United States. The “recent political climate” Neha refers to is likely that which developed during the 2016 election, as Donald Trump's campaign was “anti-immigrant” (Vidal 2018).

Immigrant lives during the green card process are filled with uncertainty. Aditi, a system engineer, explained, “When I was completing my first year, I had my green card process filed, and it seemed like the easiest thing to do but it just took so long. I have the priority date now and then another 8 years of wait before the day comes where you can actually go through the final interview process.” She added getting a green card is “not very promising to bank on.”

To be sure, the uncertainty of when immigrants will receive a green card created stress and anxiety. Sameer, a software engineer, explained, “With the current immigration, things that are happening, I feel a little stressed. I don’t know if I will go back to my home country on vacation, I don’t know whether I will be coming here or not. That's the stress I’m facing right now.” Another participant, Rahul, a senior assistant engineer, felt similarly:

You could be worried that you can be sent back any day, you constantly renew the paperwork, you have to get stamped. Every time you walk through immigration there is always a slight chance you might not be let into the country.

Fear of losing status was taxing for many Indian immigrants. Indeed, research has shown that the effects of the long wait for the green card have caused health issues such as stress, burnout, and anxiety (Artiga and Ubri 2017).

Frustrated: Considering Options Beyond the United States

The liminal legality of Indian immigrants in the green card process led to heightened feelings of frustration with the US immigration system. This frustration led them to consider other options. Options included returning to India or moving to countries where times to process permanent residency are shorter. For example, one participant, Srinivas, a systems engineer, noted,

I think about moving to Canada, at least there, the green card process is much better, and we have a Microsoft in Vancouver too, so there is an option to go over there too. Canada has a point-based immigration system which is a much better and easier path for people to get permanent residence outside the U.S.

A move to Canada perhaps has become more enticing for these workers. In June 2023, the country's “Tech Talent Strategy” was announced. The new program would allow US H-1Bs Canadian work permits, for themselves and other family members (Aziz 2023).

Interviewees also considered moving outside of North America. For example, Akshay, a consultant, shared, “I am thinking of Australia, definitely not India, but maybe Australia. If the green card process doesn’t work out, then I would think of moving to Australia.” A senior consulting engineer, Saagar, explained, “I definitely will be interested in working close to India or somewhere like in Singapore or London in the future, maybe five years from now.” These quotes show the frustrations that H-1B visa holders have with the immigration system, which may influence workers to emigrate to more visa-friendly countries.

Gendered Feelings and the H-1B

Interviewees were asked if they would ever return to India. Most—among both men and women—said they would only temporarily, to visit family and go on vacations. In addition, both gender groups wanted to stay in the United States for the same reason: Life in India—that is, their “counterfactual” life—would be less desirable than their life now in the United States. They would have less job opportunities, lower incomes, and a decline in the quality of life.

The most important change in their counterfactual lives would be a loss of freedom. Both men and women believed that they would face more limitations and restrictions in India. However, while both gender groups cited freedom as a major reason to stay in the United States, the most important freedoms they wanted to keep were distinct: Men wanted freedom at work. Women wanted freedom from gender expectations.

For men, autonomy over their work was very important. For example, Rajesh, a computer scientist, explained,

What happens is as an engineer [in India doesn’t] have much leeway…to do anything from your side, to touch up anything from your side. You have to just follow everything. The documents [for work] come from … different companies outside. You have to stick to those documentations. So, it is basically executing. Majority of work is like executing and repeating… You learn the technologies …but you are supposed to use them in a way you are told to use them. Here [in the U.S.] you get to decide pretty much everything from scratch about what you want to do and how you want to do. There is a lot of creativity options over here.

Researchers have discussed how work in India is rote and “boring” (Howcroft and Richardson 2012, 123). Indeed, since the 1990s, multi-national companies have been increasingly “offshoring” office services, like call centers, record maintenance, and logistics, to India (see Dossani and Kenney 2004).¹⁷

Like Rajesh, Karthik enjoyed freedom with his work. He described:

Once the initial design is finalized, … nobody actually comes and micromanages. You have the freedom to implement it —as long as it is up to certain standards, it passes certain test plans and all that…. I did not experience this freedom in India.

Freedom of time and movement were also important to Karthik: “You almost get all the freedom you want… The kind of freedom is there as long as you maintain certain standard of what you are supposed to do….” In a similar vein, Rohit said, “I’ve got the freedom to come at any time I want, any time I go… This freedom I will not have in India. Somebody will be dictating me what to do—when to come, when to go to bathroom, et cetera.” Abhishek, too, appreciated the autonomy at work:

It's Silicon Valley. That's what I like about this— the flexibility… [If] I had planned to go into the hills and bicycle [that day] but [new work] came up, …I can just go out and do stuff. Nobody's gonna care, even if it's a work day. As long as I get my stuff done.

Like men, women cited freedom as an important reason to stay in the United States. However, they were less concerned with freedom in the workplace. What troubled them more was the freedom they would lose in their personal lives. They wanted to keep the freedoms they had from India culture's gendered expectations.

For women in the study, staying in the US meant that women had more choice in whether or not they would get married. For example, Aditi, mentioned earlier, explained that her family, particularly her extended family in India, placed a lot of pressure on her. She shared, “[My extended family] would want me to be married. I didn’t want to be a part of that kind of discussion and wanted to step out and have a life on my own.” She went on to explain that her extended family eventually did bring her a proposal while she was in college and, in part to avoid marriage, Aditi went to the United States soon after she finished her undergrad to pursue a graduate degree. The fear Indian immigrant women face is most likely not exclusive to professionals in the United States, In their study on Indian professionals in the UK and the Netherlands, Kõu and Bailey (2017) show that immigrant Indian women in the UK and the Netherlands face greater pressure to marry than their male counterparts.

To be sure, women in the United States are not immune to sexism and gender discrimination. However, Indian immigrant women interviewees in the study perceived the United States as a better place for women professionally, politically, and personally. Indeed, studies show that women in India face discrimination and inequality in school and in the labor market (Amirtham and Kumar 2023; Sabharwal 2023). In addition, research finds that even with India's growing economy since the 1980s, women's labor market participation has been declining (Costagliola 2021). Reasons for this include gender norms regarding household labor and inequality in pay (see Arora 2023).¹⁸

It is important to note that the interviewees in the study were migrants who filed for H-1Bs. H-1B migrants had to file for their spouses and/or children, who, if accepted, would be under the H-4 dependent visa. Women who come to the U.S “under” the H-4 often take on household and child rearing labor. This was, to be sure, the case before May 2015 when H-4 spouses were not allowed to work (Banerjee 2022; USCIS 2015).¹⁹

Women felt that they would be limited in India in terms of expressing who they are and living a life of their choosing. For Aditi, the United States enabled her to be more independent, or, in her words, “to become a person of my own and figure out who I am.” In the United States, she was more comfortable sharing her “liberal thinking” and “speaking up against things” she didn’t like. She explained she has had several discussions with people in the United States about premarital sex and racism against Indians. In India, according to Aditi, “[People] are not very welcoming to those kinds of conversations… I can’t be a part of a culture that does not let me speak.” Similarly, another participant, Shweta, explained, “I am in my 30 s and I am single. It would be very hard for me to stay in India without being married and without children. I will not find people with whom I could socialize.” She added, “I have more freedom here than what I would have in India.”

Consequences of the green card drag are possibly more dramatic—and stressful—the longer migrants wait. This can be more problematic for migrant women, who have come to see themselves as belonging in the United States due to their gender identity, beliefs, and values. The life they imagine they would have in India would be drastically different and not only professionally–subjectively as well (see Menjívar and Lakhani 2016).

Women were different from men in that their concerns went beyond freedom in the workplace. Women brought up issues of identity, freedom from marriage, and child-rearing; their lives would be different not just because of the job market in India versus the United States. Their lives would be different because they are women. And being a woman in India shapes not just their job opportunities, but their personal, political, and social lives.

Discussion

The incorporation of Asian Indian professionals in the United States is complicated by US immigration policies. While many arrive in the United States with high levels of education and earn high incomes, the precarity of their lives is dragged out by legal processes. Their socioeconomic status does little to assuage the unpredictability that arises from their liminal legality.

Findings show that Asian Indian H-1Bs’ emotional lives are shaped by their legal status. In this way, they are similar to disadvantaged liminally legal groups. However, the “strength” of feelings may be less severe for Asian Indians due to the following reasons. First, the state legitimizes Asian Indians’ presence in the United States before they enter; the state grants them visas prior to their arrival. Second, the process of maintaining their temporary status is relatively easy; they can renew their visas through their employer. Third, Asian Indians’ high SES means that they can better access to professional legal help. Last, Asian Indian H-1Bs have other options: they can find well-paying, high-status jobs in other countries, including in their home country (see Chacko 2007).

However, our point is not to measure how legally vulnerable immigrant groups are. Our purpose is to demonstrate that high-SES migrants, too, are subject to immigration policies. To say this another way, the power and control of the nation-state is far-reaching and affects immigrant lives across class (see Banerjee 2022).

Findings also show that gender is a significant factor in the lives of Asian Indians. Studies have illustrated that women with precarious legal statuses face legal violence; they are unable to live their lives as they would like and fulfill familial roles, such as that of a mother (see Menjívar and Abrego 2012). For Asian Indians, gender played a role in how they felt about the possibility of going back to India. Their concerns had to do with their counterfactual lives back home— women fear a loss of independence when it comes to marriage, family life, and identity.

Conclusion

The green card backlog could be alleviated by policy changes. Such policies include phasing out the per-country cap on employment-based green cards and raising the total annual green card quotas from the current 140,000 annual cap. These reforms can help address the dysfunctions of the immigration system as it relates to the H-1B program and legal permanent residency. Immigration advocates and lawyers will likely be the groups who will push for policy changes; Asian Indians’ temporary legal status may make them fearful of self-advocacy and collective organizing.

Asian American mobility literature has largely overlooked the legal challenges high-skilled foreign-born workers face. These highly educated legal immigrants are often perceived as a problem-free group. However, as our study indicates, they face significant challenges due to long wait times and the uncertainty of their path to permanent residency. While they are legal immigrants, they remain constrained by current immigration policies that create uncertainty, stress, and a sense of powerlessness as they navigate the US's complex immigration system. What H-1B visa holders in the green card line demonstrate is the limits of SES; high-earning and high-status professional jobs do not necessitate legal permanent residency. The state and its policies can impact the lives of immigrants across the SES spectrum, including those of the highly educated.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank Roli Varma for her assistance with conducting the interviews.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant numbers: 1655322 and 1655366).

ORCID iD

Brenda Gambol

Varaidzo Zvobgo

Meghna Sabharwal

Notes

Appendix Demographics of Respondents.

Name	Gender	Degree	Field
Anil	Male	Master	Physics and Material Science
Shweta	Female	PhD	Neuroscience
Rajesh	Male	Master	Computer Science
Tejas	Male	Master	Information Systems
Rahul	Male	Master	Engineering and MBA
Priya	Female	Bachelor	Engineering
Sameer	Male	Master	Computer Engineering
Anjali	Female	PhD	Electrical Engineering
Pooja	Female	Master	Construction Management
Neha	Female	Master	Information Networking
Sonia	Female	PhD	Computer Science
Meera	Female	Master	Computer Science
Varun	Male	Master	Mechanical Engineering
Rohit	Male	Bachelor	Computer Science
Ravi	Male	Master	Computer Science
Aryan	Male	Bachelor	Computer Science
Karthik	Male	Bachelor	Computer Science
Natasha	Female	Master	Computer Science
Vinay	Male	PhD	Computer Engineering
Vikram	Male	PhD	Computer Engineering
Jayanth	Male	Bachelor	Engineering
Manish	Male	Bachelor	Physics
Sunil	Male	Master	Electrical Engineering
Akshay	Male	Master (2)	Electrical Engineering and Business
Aditi	Female	Master	Interdisciplinary Telecommunications
Alok	Male	Master	Science and Information Networking
Abhishek	Male	Master	Electrical Engineering
Tarun	Male	Bachelor	Instrumentation and Control
Harish	Male	Master	Electrical Engineering
Suresh	Male	Master (2)	Not Specified
Krishna	Male	Master	Electrical Engineering
Maya	Female	Master	Biochemistry
Siddharth	Male	Master	Business Administration
Srinivas	Male	Master	Science
Nisha	Female	PhD	Engineering
Saagar	Male	PhD	Computer Science
Rajan	Male	PhD	Material and Metallurgical Engineering
Aarti	Female	Master	Electrical Engineering
Rohan	Male	Master	Electrical Engineering
Rajendra	Male	Master	Mechanical Engineering

References

Alase

Abayomi.

2017. “The Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A Guide to a Good Qualitative Research Approach.” International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 5 (2): 9–19. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9.

Amirtham

Kumar

. 2023. “The Underrepresentation of Women in STEM Disciplines in India: A Secondary Analysis.” International Journal of Science Education 45 (12): 1008–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2179901.

Aragonés

A. E. M.

1991. “The Immigration Act of 1990: Changes in Employment-Based Migration.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 5 (1): 109–28.

Aranda

Vaquera

. 2015. “Racism, the Immigration Enforcement Regime, and the Implications for Racial Inequality in the Lives of Undocumented Young Adults.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1 (1): 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649214551097.

Arora

S. R.

2023. “Impact of Gender Norms on the Female Labour Force Participation in India.” International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research 8 (9): 2618–39. https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2023.v08i09.008.

Artiga

Ubri

. 2017. Living in an Immigrant Family in America: How Fear and Toxic Stress are Affecting Daily Life, Well-Being and Health. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Aziz

B. D.

2023. “Transforming Our Immigration System to Build a Stronger Canada.” Government of Canada June 27. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2023/10/transforming-our-immigration-system-to-build-a-stronger-canada.html.

Ballakrishnen

S. S.

2021. Accidental Feminism: Gender Parity and Selective Mobility among India’s Professional Elite. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Banerjee

2006. “Indian Information Technology Workers in the United States: The H-1B Visa, Flexible Production, and the Racialization of Labor.” Critical Sociology 32 (2–3): 425–45. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916306777835295.

10.

Banerjee

2010. “Transnational Subcontracting, Indian IT Workers, and the U.S. Visa System.” Women's Studies Quarterly 38 (1/2): 89–110.

11.

Banerjee

. 2022. The Opportunity Trap: High Skilled Workers, Indian Families, and the Failures of the Dependent Visa Program. New York: NYU Press.

12.

Bier

2020. “Employment-Based Green Card Backlog Hits 1.2 Million in 2020.” Cato Institute November 20, 2020. https://www.cato.org/blog/employment-based-green-card-backlog-hits-12-million-2020.

13.

Chacko

2007. “From Brain Drain to Brain Gain: Reverse Migration to Bangalore and Hyderabad, India’s Globalizing High Tech Cities.” GeoJournal 68: 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9078-8.

14.

Charmaz

1996. “Grounded Theory.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, edited by Smith

J. A.

Harré

Langenhove

L. V.

, 27–49. London: Sage Publications.

15.

Chauvin

Garcés-Mascareñas

. 2014. “Becoming Less Illegal: Deservingness Frames and Undocumented Migrant Incorporation.” Sociology Compass 8 (4): 422–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12145.

16.

Chavez

2021. “Penalized for Personality: A Case Study of Asian-Origin Disadvantage at the Point of Hire.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7 (2): 226–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220922270.

17.

Chin

M. M.

2020. Stuck: Why Asian Americans Don't Reach the Top of the Corporate Ladder. New York: NYU Press.

18.

Choi

K. M.

Kim

Jones

. 2023. “Korean Immigrant Fathers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Their Parenting Involvement.” Journal of Family Issues 44 (5): 1151–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X211055512.

19.

Costagliola

2021. “Labor Participation and Gender Inequalities in India: Traditional Gender Norms in India and the Decline in the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR).” The Indian Journal of Labour Economics 64: 531–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-021-00329-7.

20.

Desai

M. A.

Kapur

McHale

. 2001. “The Fiscal Impact of the Brain Drain: Indian Emigration to the U.S.” In Third Annual NBER-FCAER Conference. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=95d23ff045f48c6ab45c18371fd4bd9607d92c02 .

21.

Dossani

Kenney

. 2004. “‘Lift and Shift’: Moving the Back Office to India.” Information Technologies and International Development 1 (2): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1162/154475203322981941.

22.

Dwyer

S. C.

Buckle

J. L.

. 2009. “The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (1): 54–63.

23.

Flynn

M. A.

Eggerth

Do. E.

Jacobson

C. J.

Jr . 2015. “Undocumented Status as a Social Determinant of Occupational Safety and Health: The Workers’ Perspective.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 58 (11): 1127–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22531.

24.

García

S. J.

2018. “Living a Deportation Threat: Anticipatory Stressors Confronted by Undocumented Mexican Immigrant Women.” Race and Social Problems 10: 221–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9244-2.

25.

Gavigan

B. G.

2021. “Not All Asians End Up On Third Base.” Contexts 20 (3): 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/15365042211035336.

26.

Golash-Boza

Valdez

. 2018. “Nested Contexts of Reception: Undocumented Students at the University of California, Central.” Sociological Perspectives 61 (4): 535–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121417743728.

27.

Hoffman

Batalova

. 2022. “Indian Immigrants in the United States.” Migration Policy Institute. December 7, 2022. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/indian-immigrants-united-states.

28.

Howcroft

Richardson

. 2012. “The Back Office Goes Global: Exploring Connections and Contradictions in Shared Service Centres.” Work, Employment, and Society 26 (1): 111–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011426309.

29.

Hyun

2006. Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling: Career Strategies for Asians the Essential Guide to Getting In, Moving Up, and Reaching the Top. New York: Harper Business.

30.

Jefferies

2014. “Fear of Deportation in High School: Implications for Breaking the Circle of Silence Surrounding Migration Status.” Journal of Latinos and Education 13 (4): 278–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2014.887469.

31.

Kerr

W. R.

Lincoln

W. F.

. 2010. “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and U.S. Ethnic Intervention.” In NBER Working Paper 15768, 1–35. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

32.

Kõu

Bailey

. 2017. “‘Some People Expect Women Should Always Be Dependent’: Indian Women’s Experiences as Highly Skilled Migrants.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 85: 178–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.025.

33.

Lee

Zhou

. 2015. The Asian American Achievement Paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

34.

Lopez

W. D.

Horner

Doering-White

Jo.

Delva

Sanders

Martinez

. 2018. “Raising Children Amid the Threat of Deportation: Perspectives from Undocumented Latina Mothers.” Journal of Community Practice 26 (2): 225–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2018.1450318.

35.

Lowell

B. L.

2000. “Temporary Workers and Evolution of the Specialty H-1B Visa.” In Defense of the Alien 23: 33–43. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23141256.

36.

Massey

D. S.

2020. “Immigration Policy Mismatches and Counterproductive Outcomes: Unauthorized Migration to the U.S. in Two Eras.” Comparative Migration Studies 8 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00181-6.

37.

McDaniel

Casanova

. 2005. “Forest Management and the H-2B Guest Worker Program in the Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Contractors and Their Crews.” Journal of Forestry 103 (3): 114–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/103.3.114.

38.

Menjívar

2006. “Liminal Legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan Immigrants’ Lives in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 111 (4): 999–1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/499509.

39.

Menjívar

Abrego

. 2012. “Legal Violence: Immigration Law and the Lives of Central American Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (5): 1380–421. https://doi.org/10.1086/663575.

40.

Menjívar

Lakhani

S. M.

. 2016. “Transformative Effects of Immigration Law: Immigrants’ Personal and Social Metamorphoses Through Regularization.” American Journal of Sociology 12 (6): 1818–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/685103.

41.

National Science Foundation. 2023. “Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities.” Retrieved on November 24, 2023. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce.

42.

Papademetriou

D. G

Yale-Loehr

. 1996. Balancing Interests: Rethinking U.S. Selection of Skilled Immigrants. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

43.

Pierce

2019. “Immigration-Related Policy Changes in the First Two Years of the Trump Administration.” Migration Policy Institute, May 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-policy-changes-two-years-trump-administration.

44.

Rico

Hahn

J. K.

Spence

. 2023. “Asian Indian Was the Largest Asian Alone Population Group in 2020.” United States Census Bureau, September 21, 2023. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/2020-census-dhc-a-asian-population.html.

45.

Roberts

2014. “‘Out’ in the Field. Reflecting on the Dilemmas of Insider Status on Data Collection and Conducting Interviews with Gay Men.” Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal 33 (5): 451–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2013-0056.

46.

Sabharwal

2023. “Rising Gender Inequities in India: The Case of Authoritarian Patriarchy.” Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration 1 (1): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.24926/jsepa. v1i1.4929.

47.

Sabharwal

Varma

. 2015. “Scientific Diaspora: Stay Plans of Indian Faculty in the United States.” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 14 (3): 368–87. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341351.

48.

Sabharwal

Varma

. 2017. “Are Asian Indian Scientists and Engineers in Academia Faced with a Glass Ceiling?.” Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research 12 (1): 50–62.

49.

Sabharwal

Varma

Noor

. 2021. “Ethnic Organizations and Adaptation: A Case Study of Indian Immigrant Engineers in the U.S.” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 20 (4): 317–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341598.

50.

Said

(January 26, 2023). “How Tech Layoffs by Twitter, Meta Impact H-1B Visa Holders.” San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/tech-layoffs-h1b-visa-17616927.php.

51.

Savinar

R. L.

2022. “Job Hopping and Hunkering Down: How H-1B Migrant Workers Survive the U.S Labour Market.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48 (3): 811–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1610366.

52.

Schuck

P. H.

1992. “The Politics of Rapid Legal Change: Immigration Policy in the 1980s.” Studies in American Political Development 6 (1): 37–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X00000742.

53.

Shao

2023. “Is There a Bamboo Ceiling? The Asian-White Gap in Managerial Attainment for College-Educated Workers.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 9 (1): 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/23326492221114809.

54.

Stonawski

2013. “Understanding Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa: Protecting American Government Interests, Improving the Opportunities for American Companies, or Potentially Hurting Hopeful Immigrants.” Laws 2 (3): 233–43. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws2030233.

55.

Terry

2018. “Precarity and Guest Work in US Tourism: J-1 and H-2B Visa Programs.” Tourism Geographies 20 (1): 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1336784.

56.

Toma

Villares-Varela

. 2019. “The Role of Migration Policies in the Attraction and Retention of International Talent: The Case of Indian Researchers.” Sociology 53 (1): 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517750540.

57.

Tran

V. C.

2024. “Asian American Diversity and Growth.” Annual Review of Sociology 50: 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-012617.

58.

Tran

V. C.

Lee

Huang

T. J.

. 2019. “Revisiting the Asian Second-Generation Advantage.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4 (13): 2248–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1579920.

59.

Tucket

2015. “Strategies of Navigation: Migrants’ Everyday Encounters with Italian Immigration Bureaucracy.” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 33 (1): 113–28. https://doi.org/10.3167/ca.2015.330109.

60.

USCIS. 2015. “DHS Extends Eligibility for Employment Authorization to Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses of H-1B Nonimmigrants Seeking Employment-Based Lawful Permanent Residency.” February 24. https://www.uscis.gov/archive/dhs-extends-eligibility-for-employment-authorization-to-certain-h-4-dependent-spouses-of-h-1b.

61.

USCIS. 2019. “H-1B Petitions by Gender and Country of Birth Fiscal Year 2019.” Retrieved on October 24, 2024. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/h-1b-petitions-by-gender-country-of-birth-fy2019.pdf.

62.

USCIS. 2022. “Green Card Eligibility Categories.” Retrieved October 4, 2024 https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories.

63.

USCIS. 2023. “Number of Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Petitions Received and Current Status for India.” Retrieved on October 4, 2024 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/i140_rec_by_class_country_fy2023_%20q4.pdf.

64.

USCIS. 2024a. “FAQs for Individuals in H-1B Nonimmigrant Status.” October 11. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations/faqs-for-individuals-in-h-1b-nonimmigrant-status.

65.

USCIS. 2024b. “I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.” September 30. https://www.uscis.gov/i-140.

66.

USCIS. 2024c. “Options for Nonimmigrant Workers Following Termination of Employment.” April 1. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/information-for-employers-and-employees/options-for-nonimmigrant-workers-following-termination-of-employment.

67.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2023. “Nonimmigrant Classes of Admission.” Office of Homeland Security, November 20, 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/ohss/topics/immigration/nonimmigrants/classes-of-admission.

68.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2024. “Permanent Labor Certification.” U.S. Department of Labor, Accessed on May 23, 2024. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/programs/permanent.

69.

U.S. Department of State. 2024. “Visa Bulletin for November 2023.” Retrieved on May 23, 2024. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-november-2023.html.

70.

Varma

2020. “To Be or Not to Be on H-1B Visas: Engineers from India in the United States.” Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 19 (3): 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341557.

71.

Vidal

X. M.

2018. “Immigration Politics in the 2016 Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 51 (2): 304–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517002402.

72.

Yoshika

2011. Immigrants Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents and Their Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.