Visa power, political influence and the big business of labor arbitrage

At the center of one of the most aggressive immigration-lobbying operations in the United States sits a GOP figure few Republican voters know by name, but whose influence reaches deep into the policies that shape America’s labor market. Hima Kolanagireddy is not simply a business executive or Republican Party activist. She occupies multiple roles that, taken together, raise serious questions about conflicts of interest, political access and – most fundamentally – who truly benefits from America’s immigration system.

Kolanagireddy is a senior leader within ITServe Alliance, a trade organization representing hundreds of IT staffing and outsourcing firms, many of which rely heavily on employment-based visa programs such as H-1B, OPT, CPT and related categories. ITServe presents itself publicly as an organization “empowering local employment,” yet its own internal materials and public statements tell a very different story, one focused on dismantling immigration enforcement mechanisms that protect U.S. workers.

ITServe Alliance and the business of visa dependency

Over the past several years, ITServe has openly documented its success in reshaping U.S. immigration policy through litigation, lobbying and direct political engagement. Its own publications credit the organization with reversing OPT restrictions on third-party placement, eliminating the requirement for client letters and itineraries, weakening the employer-employee relationship standard, blocking wage rule increases and preserving the random H-1B lottery system. Each of these changes benefits staffing intermediaries that place foreign workers at client sites while operating offshore delivery models abroad.

Kolanagireddy’s role in this effort is not peripheral. Her own campaign and biographical materials state that she serves as a PAC director for ITServe while also sitting in leadership positions within the organization. ITServe itself lists her as a managing officer of its connected PAC and a key figure in its advocacy operations. This places her in the unusual position of benefiting from visa policy outcomes as a business operator while simultaneously helping to direct political spending and lobbying designed to influence those very outcomes.

This dual role is particularly significant given ITServe’s stated mission. In its own words, the organization exists to educate lawmakers on the “benefits” of the H-1B program, eliminate what it describes as misconceptions about visa enforcement and collaborate directly with members of Congress to help write and amend laws favorable to its members’ business interests. ITServe has celebrated its access to more than 150 U.S. representatives and senators and has promoted its ability to shape legislation such as the High-Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment (HIRE) Act, which seeks to expand visa caps and remove limitations that currently restrict foreign labor inflows.

For ordinary American workers and small businesses, these policy victories have tangible consequences. Wage suppression, displacement and unfair competition are not theoretical outcomes when labor brokers can import large numbers of workers tied to a single employer, pay below-market rates and offshore large portions of work overseas. ITServe’s own membership incentives underscore this reality. Chapter materials openly advertise free and discounted H-1B filings, legal defense against visa enforcement actions and litigation support as benefits of membership. Reliance on immigration is not incidental to the business model; it is central to it.

When advocacy and self-interest converge

The political dimension adds another layer of concern. Kolanagireddy holds positions within Republican Party structures – she is an RNC national committeewoman from Michigan – while representing an organization whose primary objective is to expand foreign labor access. This convergence of party politics and industry lobbying raises legitimate questions about policy capture. When immigration rules are shaped by those who profit directly from their weakening, the interests of American workers are no longer the primary consideration.

That concern becomes more concrete when examining Kolanagireddy’s own business operations. Her company, Ascii Group, operates a clear onshore-offshore labor model built around foreign labor dependency, visa-restricted recruitment and wage arbitrage. Public recruitment records, social media postings and hiring materials show U.S. jobs being sourced, filtered and staffed through recruiting teams based primarily in India, particularly Hyderabad, rather than through the U.S. labor market.

Recruitment posts tied to Ascii Group repeatedly specify visa eligibility requirements such as H-1B, OPT, CPT, H-4 EAD and TN, often excluding U.S. citizens by design. Some postings require passport submission at the application stage, while others advertise “US IT Recruiter” positions physically located in India and tasked with filling U.S. jobs. These practices are not incidental outsourcing; they reflect a vertically integrated foreign labor pipeline designed to bypass domestic hiring competition.

At the same time, Ascii Group’s recruiting workforce appears overwhelmingly concentrated overseas. This staffing imbalance enables labor arbitrage, where lower-cost recruiters abroad source visa-tethered workers who can then be placed into U.S. roles under conditions that restrict mobility and suppress wages. The profitability of the model depends on immigration status as a gatekeeping mechanism.

This pattern intersects directly with federal relief funding. During the same period in which visa-restricted recruitment and offshore staffing activity are documented, Ascii Group received substantial Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds. PPP relief required certifications of compliance with federal non-discrimination laws and was intended to support U.S. payroll retention. Yet contemporaneous recruitment evidence shows hiring practices that favored non-citizens, conditioning employment on visa class rather than job qualifications.

These practices raise the possibility of violations of multiple federal laws, including the Immigration and Nationality Act’s anti-discrimination provisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits citizenship-status discrimination, as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act where national-origin effects are evident. When such conduct coincides with receipt of federal funds, it may also invite scrutiny in light of the False Claims Act, given the certifications required to obtain PPP loans.

Party politics and policy capture

The overlap between business conduct and political influence only deepens the conflict. Kolanagireddy’s leadership role within ITServe’s PAC places her in a position to lobby for immigration policy changes that directly benefit the same visa-dependent labor model her company employs. The policies ITServe publicly celebrates – weakening employer-employee definitions, expanding OPT placement, blocking wage rule increases and preserving the H-1B lottery – are the policies that sustain onshore-offshore labor arbitrage.

When a political actor holds party leadership positions while directing advocacy efforts that materially benefit his or her own business operations, the line between policy advocacy and self-dealing becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. This is not a question of ideology, but of transparency, compliance and accountability.

There are also broader national implications. Many ITServe member companies operate extensive offshore centers in India and recruit directly from abroad for U.S. placements. This creates an integrated onshore-offshore labor pipeline that allows firms to arbitrage wages, bypass domestic labor markets and shift intellectual capital overseas. Whether this rises to the level of labor trafficking under U.S. law is a determination for regulators, but the structural indicators, dependency, restricted worker mobility and systematic displacement are well documented.

Party politics and policy capture

Perhaps most troubling is how openly ITServe frames its objectives. Its PAC materials state plainly that the goal is to lobby Congress and federal agencies to pass laws favorable to member businesses. This is not hidden; it is celebrated. When such an organization gains privileged access to lawmakers through party leadership roles held by its own officers, voters have a right to ask who is being represented.

This journalistic investigation is not about party loyalty or ideology. It is about accountability. U.S. immigration policy affects citizens’ wages and job availability as well as national security and America’s economic sovereignty. When those policies are shaped by a small network of visa-dependent businesses operating through a coordinated lobbying and political apparatus, the best interests of the American public are at risk of being subverted.

The big question facing regulators, party leadership and voters is not complicated: Are America’s immigration laws being written to protect American workers and businesses, or are they being engineered to serve a transnational staffing industry that openly organizes to rewrite the rules in its favor? Until that question is answered honestly and completely, figures like Hima Kolanagireddy and the powerful organizations they represent deserve sustained scrutiny.

SEE THE EVIDENCE ARCHIVE: To access a comprehensive and ever-expanding archive of additional evidence supporting this exclusive WND investigative report, visit “Foreign Influence and Lobbying Network Hub.”