Is it fair for H1B Visa holders to be tied to a single employer, or should they have more flexibility to change jobs without risking their visa status?

From a fairness perspective, being tied to a single employer is essentially modern-day indentured servitude. The lack of mobility traps workers in jobs they might dislike, prevents fair salary negotiations, and creates opportunities for exploitation. H1B holders are highly skilled professionals, not seasonal workers. It makes no sense that they should live in constant fear of losing status if they quit or are laid off. At the very least, the U.S. should extend grace periods (say 6–12 months instead of 60 days) to allow workers to find a new job. If the goal of the program is to fill skill gaps, then it’s logical to let workers move freely to wherever those gaps exist. Restricting mobility doesn’t benefit the U.S. economy—it only benefits employers who want cheap, locked-in labor.

It’s a complicated issue. On the one hand, companies argue that sponsoring a visa involves legal fees, paperwork, and liability. They see it as a long-term investment, so naturally they want some assurance that the worker won’t leave immediately. On the other hand, tying someone’s legal status to a single employer is a massive power imbalance. It allows bad employers to exploit foreign workers, knowing they won’t risk losing their visa. The fairest solution would be a middle ground: - Require workers to stay with the initial employer for a minimum term (say 1 year). - After that, allow free mobility across employers without restarting the visa process. That way, both sides get protection.