Speaking at a televised town hall on Saturday, Vance accepted responsibility for his language but insisted that his criticism concerned corporate hiring practices rather than immigrants themselves. His clarification followed a diplomatic protest from New Delhi over terminology that India’s Ministry of External Affairs described as deeply offensive.
“I would say, and to the extent that my rhetoric has been imperfect here, that’s on me,” Vance said when challenged about his remarks by a naturalised US citizen originally from India.
The vice-president maintained that employers should not use immigration programmes to replace qualified American workers with overseas recruits. He argued that the United States could welcome skilled migrants while ensuring that domestic employees were not disadvantaged by corporate recruitment decisions.
Vance illustrated his argument with the example of a large company hiring an accountant from abroad while dismissing an existing employee performing comparable work. Such a practice, he contended, would be unfair even if the employer claimed it could not find suitable workers domestically.
“I do think that we can strike that balance in the right way,” he said, adding that the immigration system needed to accommodate both economic contributions from newcomers and employment opportunities for US citizens.
His comments came after India’s government formally rejected the description of H-1B visa holders as indentured labourers. The Ministry of External Affairs said the characterisation disregarded the qualifications and economic contributions of professionals from India working in the United States.
The ministry also objected to language associated with colonial-era systems of bonded labour. Its response highlighted the historical sensitivity of the expression, which refers to workers bound by contracts that could severely restrict their freedom and bargaining power.
The dispute has accompanied the Trump administration’s decision to suspend several major technology companies from participation in the Permanent Labor Certification programme, known as PERM. The programme provides an important preliminary step for employers seeking employment-based permanent residence for eligible foreign workers.
Companies identified in connection with the restrictions included Microsoft, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL and Capgemini. The measures have raised concerns among employers that depend on internationally recruited engineers, technology specialists and other skilled personnel.
Announcing the action earlier this month, Vance urged companies to stop bringing in what he called indentured servants for jobs that American workers would willingly perform. The formulation prompted criticism because it appeared to characterise visa holders themselves in degrading terms rather than identifying specific employer abuses.
At the town hall, Vance sought to distinguish his objections to business practices from his attitude towards migrants. He referred to his family, including his parents-in-law, who moved to the United States from South India, and his wife, Usha Vance, who was born in America.
He said he loved his parents-in-law and was proud of his wife, using those personal connections to explain that his position did not amount to rejecting people who immigrate and contribute to American society.
The clarification did not signal a reversal of the administration’s approach to employment-based immigration. Vance continued to argue that businesses should demonstrate genuine need before recruiting foreign workers and should not use visa arrangements to undercut existing employees.
Technology companies have challenged aspects of that argument. Microsoft has said that most of its H-1B applications concern employees already working for the company, rather than new overseas recruits. Its president, Brad Smith, has disputed accusations that the company misuses the programme and warned that tighter immigration restrictions could damage US competitiveness.
India has separately questioned whether the suspensions advance the two countries’ economic ambitions. Its objections have focused both on the treatment of skilled professionals and on the practical consequences for companies employing workers who seek permanent residence through established channels.
The H-1B system allows employers to recruit foreign professionals for specialised occupations, subject to eligibility requirements and government oversight. PERM serves a different purpose, establishing labour certification for certain applications for permanent residency rather than authorising temporary employment under H-1B status.
That distinction matters because restrictions on permanent-residence sponsorship do not automatically cancel an employee’s existing H-1B permission. They can, however, complicate an employer’s ability to support a worker seeking a longer-term future in the United States.
