The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc.
19 - 22 April 2007
House Committee on
Agriculture
Dependence on Immigrant Labor
© 2007 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
Congress 2007. Use for other purposes is not permitted
without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1
Background ___________________________________________________________ 2
Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1850-1882)_________________________________ 3
Migrant Workers and the Migrant Workers’ Movement ________________________________ 4
Proposition 187: “Save Our State (SOS)” Initiative (1994) _______________________________ 9
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 2003_________________________ 10
Guest Workers Program (2004 – 2005) ______________________________________________ 11
Current Status ________________________________________________________ 13
H-2 Temporary Agricultural Program_______________________________________________ 13
Perspectives on Immigration and the Agricultural Sector _______________________________ 15
Recent Events ___________________________________________________________________ 17
The Great American Boycott (A Day Without an Immigrant) _____________________________________17
Key Positions _________________________________________________________ 19
Party Positions ________________________________________________________ 19
Democratic Party________________________________________________________________________19
Republican Party ________________________________________________________________________20
Summary_____________________________________________________________ 22
Discussion Questions ___________________________________________________ 23
Works Cited __________________________________________________________ 25
Rutgers Model Congress
1
Introduction
Considerable aspects of the modern American economy were built by immigrant
labor. There are countless examples of the way that immigrant labor has shaped the
United States, such as the work of Chinese, Irish, and German immigrants building the
transcontinental railroad and eastern European immigrant labor in manufacturing during
the industrial revolution. Even today, immigrant labor is a significant component of the
United States workforce, especially in the agricultural sector. Recent immigrants are
about 1.8 times more likely to work in the nation’s agricultural industries than are nativeborn American citizens.1
The agriculture sector’s dependence on immigrant labor is reflected in the
hesitancy of legislative bodies to act on the issue. Numerous immigrant policy reform
bills have been proposed over the years and many have been debated, yet few ever
reached the floor of the full House for consideration. Most of the significant immigration
policy legislation that has actually passed in Congress provided separate, special
provisions for foreign-born agricultural workers, such as the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986. Concerns over restricting immigration for potential agricultural
workers include a dearth of domestic laborers willing to work as manual laborers, meat
packers, or other jobs in the agricultural sector. Because immigrant laborers, especially
undocumented immigrant laborers, are typically paid less than their domestic
counterparts, the restriction of immigration for agricultural workers could very well result
in the rising cost of produce as well as tremendous losses for the agricultural sector. At
the same time, protection of domestic workers is crucial in offsetting unemployment rates
in the country, and many experts argue that immigrant labor is taking away jobs from
domestic laborers who should be getting first preference.
1
“The Value of Undocumented Workers,” The American Immigration Law Foundation,
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2002_value.asp (accessed January 6, 2006)
Rutgers Model Congress
2
Illegal immigration is a crucial component of immigrant labor, considering that
between 1 million and 1.4 million undocumented workers work in the agricultural
sector.2 A number of programs have been proposed in order to curb illegal immigration
in the United States, and some have generated significant controversy and even protests.
The current temporary visa program, the H-2A visa program, attempts to curb illegal
immigration by granting temporary visas to foreign-born agricultural workers seeking
seasonal work, so long as agricultural employers demonstrate that there is a lack of
domestic labor available. This program, however, has come under criticism, with some
arguing that the program is too administratively burdensome while others argue that the
H-2A visa program does not do enough.
Background
The United States is known as a nation of immigrants. Census Bureau data from
2004 indicates that 11.8 per cent of people in America are foreign born, the highest
percentage of immigrants the group has recorded in more than seventy years.3 The
reasons why people come to the United States vary, such as escaping from cultural or
religious persecution or needing better economic opportunities for themselves and their
families. Because of the popular conception of the United States as a ‘land of
opportunity,’ many immigrants, especially from Mexico and Central America, come to
the United States looking for work, often finding jobs in the agricultural sector as migrant
laborers, farmhands, and workers in agriculture and livestock processing plants. In order
to understand why immigrant labor is so prevalent in the United States today, one must
understand the history of labor migration to the United States, a process that has largely
influenced American markets and economy since the country’s founding, and the ensuing
labor policies the migrations caused.
2
Ibid
“The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market,” Congressional Budget Office, 25 November 2005,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6853/11-10-immigration.pdf (accessed 26 December 2006)
3
Rutgers Model Congress
3
Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1850-1882)
The 1800s were a time period of expansion, with the acquisition of the Louisiana
Purchase and continual explorations to the western half of the continent. During the
Reconstruction Era, immigrants again began to stream to the United States seeking
opportunity and labor. With the discovery of the gold in California in 1849, many
immigrants, particularly Chinese immigrants, flocked to the West in search of riches.
Chinese men came to America in large numbers as individual miners during the 1849
California Gold Rush, with 41,400 recorded as arriving from 1851 to1860.4 The Gold
Rush was not as profitable as many immigrants had hoped it would be, and they began to
seek employment in massive construction projects, such as the building of the
transcontinental railroad. Significant numbers of Chinese immigrants came to the United
States in response to the need for inexpensive labor in the construction industry.5
The United States government severely curtailed immigration from China to the
United States between 1882 and 1943. The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, was
the first piece of legislation in the United States that imposed immigration restrictions.
Implementing the act also required a great and unprecedented effort from the federal
bureaucracy in order to enforce the restrictions and control immigration. The ban was
initially a temporary measure in order
Chinese as a threat to their own access
Nativism:
A belief common in London’s day that the “true”
Americans were those of earlier Anglo-Saxon descent, that
this “race” was under threat from the growing influx of
Central European (Catholic and Jewish) and Asian
immigrants.
to labor. After many extensions it was
Source: sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Essays/glossary.html
to quell the nativist sentiments of
xenophobic Americans who saw the
4
“Chinese Immigration to the United States, 1851-1900,” Rise of Industrial America, Library of Congress, 2
February 2004, http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/riseind/chinimms/chinimms.html (accessed 26
December 2006)
5
Ibid
Rutgers Model Congress
4
made permanent in 1904, but was later repealed in 1943.6 The argument that foreign
laborers provide too much competition in the job market is still used in the immigration
debates of today.
Migrant Workers and the Migrant Workers’ Movement
Farm laborers in the United States that harvest crops around the country and have
no set home are referred to as migrant workers since they may work in the orange harvest
in Florida, and then move to California to cultivate lettuce depending upon the season.
Migrant workers play a significant role in the American agricultural industry. These
individuals typically work long hours for low wages. As a result, the product of their
labor translates into low-cost fruits and vegetables in most American grocery stores.
While on the one hand, the wages that they receive working in American farmlands are
typically higher than that which they would in their country of origin, the fact that they
are often undocumented workers, and therefore working illegally, their employers have
been seen taking advantage of them by increasing the output they need to produce to get
paid, lowering their wages even further, and even maintaining an unsafe working
environment.
The recruitment of Mexican laborers began in the early 1900s when United Statesfinanced railroads entered the Mexican interior and provided American labor recruiters
access to western Mexican states.7 After the First World War, European immigration
declined, resulting in the doubling of labor recruiters’ efforts to bring more Mexican
laborers into the United States. Mexicans worked in many sectors to accommodate the
loss of European immigrant labor; agriculture in particular recruited many Mexicans to
work as migrant laborers, picking fruits and vegetables at low cost. During the Great
6
Kitty Calavita, “The Paradoxes of Race, Class, Identity, and ‘Passing’: Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Acts,
1882-1910” Law & Social Inquiry; Winter, Vol. 25 Issue 1 (2000): p 4.
7
Jorge Durand, Douglas S. Massey, and Rene M. Zenteno, Mexican Immigration to the United States: Continuities
and Changes, Latin American Research Review, University of Texas Press: 2001, p.109 (accessed via J-STOR 26
December 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
5
Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s, many newly-impoverished Americans moved
westward to find work, especially in agriculture. Finding themselves competing with
Mexican workers for already low-waged hard labor, a revival in nativist sentiments
occurred, resulting in the deportation of an estimated 453,000 Mexican immigrants
between 1929 and 1937.8
When the United States entered the Second World War, the loss of many ablebodied workers to the military forced the United States government to terminate the
deportation programs and instead increase its labor recruitment efforts once more. The
Bracero Act of 1942, a bi-national treaty between the United States and Mexico, arranged
for the “temporary importation” of farm workers through renewable temporary visas. The
program lasted until 1964, and in its twenty-two years of existence, some 4.6 million
Mexican immigrants held positions in the American job market. The end of the Bracero
Act also began new waves of undocumented immigration that still affect the United
States today.9
In 1961, Edward R. Murrow’s documentary Harvest of Shame brought the
inadequate living and working conditions of migrant workers to the Thanksgiving tables
of millions of American viewers.10
Americans were able to witness the horrifying
conditions with which migrant farm workers dealt on a daily basis. Workers lived in
labor camps, and growers did not see a need to renovate the hovels because migrants
stayed for only a few weeks in the year, just long enough to complete the crop harvest.11
Migrant laborers were often exploited, working long hours in the field with no bathroom
facilities in the fields or in their labor camps. Workers were paid well below minimum
wage, as farm workers were excluded from the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 that
ensured most other workers a minimum wage. If workers spoke out against the injustice,
they were easily replaced by other migrant workers in need of labor or illegal immigrants
8
Ibid, 106
Ibid, 107
10
Fred W. Friendly, Harvest of Shame, CBS Broadcast International. Rpt. NY: Ambrose Video, 1991.
11
Ibid
9
Rutgers Model Congress
6
that growers would transport across the border specifically to break picket lines.12 In
1960, a survey of one hundred field laborers’ households in Fresno County, California
was conducted, and the findings were shocking: a quarter of the families had no place to
refrigerate food; many lacked access to preventative medicine, leaving more than half of
farm workers’ children not immunized against polio; and a quarter of those surveyed had
to use outhouses instead of flush toilets.13 The publicity given to the once unknown
function of migrant workers showed the United States’ agricultural sector’s incredible
dependence on migrant workers, and also set the stage for the Migrant Workers
Movement, an effort whose goals and achievements highlight many of today’s
controversies surrounding immigrant agricultural laborers and fuel the present
immigration debate.
In California, the agricultural center for American produce, Cesar Chavez led the
National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) in boycotts, strikes, and negotiations with
some of the most powerful growers
in the United States. The goals of the
NFWA were to achieve much
needed benefits to members of the
Unemployment:
A measure of the number of workers that want to work but
do not have jobs.
Underemployment:
The employment of workers for fewer hours or in less
desirable jobs than they would prefer and are qualified for.
union such as aid for unemployment
Source: www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/u.html
and those who were underemployed,
disability insurance, and health insurance.14 The movement eventually achieved some of
its original goals. A wage increase from $1.65 to $1.85 negotiated with major grape
growers at the end of the 1960s was a step closer to achieving the national minimum
wage.15 The NFWA also succeeded in the establishment of the Robert F. Kennedy
Health and Welfare Plan, essentially a pension plan for migrant workers that entitled
12
Susan Ferriss and Ricardo Sandoval, The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farm Workers’ Movement
(Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, 242.
13
Ibid, 67
14
Brian Raupp, “Chicanas in the Labor Unions,” University of Wisconsin Working Paper Series,
http://www.chicla.wisc.edu/brian1.htm (accessed December 28, 2006).
15
Ferriss and Sandoval, 156.
Rutgers Model Congress
7
them to medical care when needed.16 Ten-minute work breaks and access to water were
also granted.
While the achievements of the NWFA were certainly human rights’ achievements,
questions concerning migrant workers’ entitlement to government benefits were raised.
In that these individuals were undocumented or illegal aliens, government programs were
largely inapplicable to them. They did not have access to Social Security benefits, and
programs like disability were also beyond their reach. The question that began to surface
was if the government had a moral responsible to provide the necessary care and services
to a population that was making up such a considerable proportion of the broader
economy.
While this debate first surfaced nearly fifty years ago, the questions remain
unanswered.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)
The sunset of the Bracero Act in 1964 caused the relatively unobstructed
immigration of undocumented Mexicans. By the early 1980s, fifty-five per cent of illegal
immigrants came from Mexico and accounted for two-thirds of total immigration from
Mexico.17 The increasing flow of illegal aliens from south of the border was only slightly
hindered with the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986.
The rationale behind the IRCA was that illegal immigration was an economic threat, and
that those hiring illegal immigrants must be punished in order to curb the desire for
illegal immigrant labor. The IRCA criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal
immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing these
aliens.18 At the same time, the IRCA included amnesty for aliens who could establish
residence in the United States since 1 January 1982. The act is perceived to have
16
Ibid
George Vernez and David Ronfelt, “The Current Situation in Mexican Immigration,” Science, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991, 1189 (accessed via J-STOR 28 December 2006)
18
Ibid
17
Rutgers Model Congress
8
inadvertently favored illegal immigrants, as those individuals already in the country who
had access to the United States Postal Service were more easily able to apply for visas.
In addition to amnesty, the ICRA included “special exemptions” for aliens
employed in agricultural work, demonstrating the need for low-wage laborers in the
agricultural sector.19 Agricultural employers demanded the inclusion of a guest-worker
program in the IRCA as the price for their support of an immigration control law. Ethics
groups and lawmakers alike disliked the growers’ inclination to use cheap immigrant
labor. Alan Simpson (R-WY), who aimed to craft immigration law and policy in the
national interest rather than that of growers, said, “The greed of the growers . . . is
insatiable. There is no way they can be satisfied. Their entire function in life is that when
the figs are ready, the figs should be harvested and they need four thousand human beings
to do that.”20 Then-Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY) was behind the compromise
that transformed the agriculture employers’ guest-worker program into a second amnesty.
The Schumer proposal, which became a part of IRCA, provided permanent-resident
status and eventual citizenship for illegal aliens who had worked in American agriculture
for at least ninety days from May 1985 through April 1986. The compromise also
included what is known as the H-2A Program, which grants the same possibility to
employers to expand labor supplies should the agricultural sector face a shortage in the
future.21 This compromise was highly controversial; as a result, for the first time in
American history outsiders brought in to difficult, temporary jobs would be given the full
Constitutional protections and many of the privileges of Americans.22
19
George Weisseinger, “The Illegal Alien Problem: Enforcing the Immigration Laws,” New York Institute of
Technology, 7 November 2003, http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html (accessed 28 December
2006)
20
Lawrence Fuchs, “The Corpse That Would Not Die: The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” Revue
Européenne des Migrations Internationales 6, vol. 1, 1990 (accessed via Google Scholar, 29 December 2006).
21
Christian Joppke, “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration,” World Politics, vol 50, 1998 (accessed
via Project Muse and Rutgers Libraries, 29 December 2006).
22
Fuchs
Rutgers Model Congress
9
Proposition 187: “Save Our State (SOS)” Initiative (1994)
California, the largest exporting state of fruits and vegetables, is perhaps the state
most affected by illegal immigration. Because it is a prime agricultural center, California
has a high concentration of illegal immigrants that cross the United States-Mexico border
in order to work as migrant laborers on farms. As a result, the government of California
incurs disproportionate costs due to migrant labor while the federal government reaps the
benefits in terms of federal taxes and social security payments. California houses two
million of the estimated eleven million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.23
The Urban Institute calculated that these workers cost the state close to $2 billion per
year in education, emergency medical services, and incarceration expenses. Compared to
this sum, the $732 million in state revenues from sales, property, and income taxes
generated by illegal aliens appears inadequate.24
In November 1994, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187,
dubbed the “Save Our State” (SOS) Initiative, which would bar illegal aliens from most
state-provided services, including healthcare and education. Proposition 187 was
unconstitutional, violating the 1982 Supreme Court Plyer v. Doe ruling that children of
illegal immigrants have the constitutional right to a public school education. Knowing
full well that the proposition was unconstitutional, California state legislators proposed
the initiative as a symbolic message to federal legislators, indicating the economic
pressures of immigration, both legal and illegal, on California and the failure of the
federal legislature to act on the issue of immigration.25
In response, the Federal Commission on Immigration Reform immediately
proposed drastic changes of existing immigration law and policy. The commission’s final
report in March 1995 recommended reductions in legal immigration by one-third and that
23
Joppke
Peter Schuck, “The Meaning of 187,” The American Prospect, Issue 85, 1995 (accessed via Google Scholar, 29
December 2006).
25
Joppke
24
Rutgers Model Congress
10
employers should find it more difficult and costly to hire foreign professionals. This
proposal, supported also by the Clinton administration, went even further than
Proposition 187, which had targeted only illegal immigration.26
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of
2003
The Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 2003, also known
as AgJOBS (S. 1645 and H.R. 3142), was introduced by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Howard
Berman (D-CA). AgJOBS proposed the creation of an “earned adjustment” program
enabling several hundred thousand H-2A guest workers and undocumented farm workers
to obtain temporary immigration status with the possibility of becoming permanent
residents of the United States. This bill would only apply to workers who have already
worked in United States agriculture.
To
obtain a Green Card, they would be
obligated to continue working in agriculture
for several more years. The legislation
would also modify the H-2A temporary
Green Card:
A United States Permanent Resident Card, also
known popularly as Green Card, is an
identification card for a permanent resident of the
United States of America who does not have U.S.
citizenship. It is proof that the holder has
permission to permanently reside and take
employment in the U.S.
foreign agricultural worker program, which permits employers to hire guest workers to
fill seasonal agricultural jobs.
AgJOBS attempted to reconcile the polar opinions on immigration policy after
nine years of conflict in Congress and several years of contentious negotiations. The bill
attempted to stabilize the agricultural labor force, providing employers with a reliable
labor force and ensuring that the laborers had adequate safety and wage protections.
AgJOBS sought to give undocumented workers the incentive to properly access the U.S.
immigration system in return for the opportunity to earn permanent resident status in the
26
Ibid
Rutgers Model Congress
11
United States, affording them a host of benefits and legal protections. AgJOBS was
proposed both in the Senate and in the House, but never became a law.27
Guest Workers Program (2004 – 2005)
Several proposals aimed at revising immigration policy concerning guest workers
were proposed in 2001 during the 107th Congress. Prior Congresses had debated similar
proposals, but never enacted any of them. President George W. Bush and Mexican
President Vicente Fox established a cabinet-level immigration working group and were
expected to propose a guest worker program. However, the events of 11 September 2001
changed the focus of immigration policy, shifting it away from guest worker programs
and towards national security.28
On 7 January 2004, President Bush made his first formal proposal to Congress
focused on immigration reform, suggesting the creation of a temporary worker program
for newcomers and immigrants currently living in the United States without
authorization. Bush explained that such reforms were necessary to reduce the potential
national security threat of having eight million unidentified, unauthorized immigrants in
the United States.29 President Bush also saw the proposed reform preventing future
exploitation of immigrants and human smuggling while protecting the wages of all
workers. The president declared that the United States’ immigration system was “broken”
and proposed that a system of “matching willing workers with willing employers” be the
cornerstone for reform.30 President Bush also proposed a system that could legalize the
status of million of undocumented workers, provided they pay the government back taxes
27
“Immigration Reform: Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 2003 (AgJOBS),” National
Immigration Forum, 2003, http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=661 (accessed 1 January
2007)
28
Geoffrey K. Colver and Ruth Ellen Wasem, “Immigration of Agricultural Guest Workers: Policy, Trends, and
Legislative Issues,” Congressional Research Office, Library of Congress, 24 January 2003,
http://hutchison.senate.gov/RL30852.pdf (accessed 1 January 2007), 2
29
Maia Jachimowicz, “Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program,” Migration Policy Institute, February 1,
2004, http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=202 (accessed 1 January 2007).
30
Ibid
Rutgers Model Congress
12
and appropriate fines. In 2005, both houses of Congress reacted to President Bush’s
requests by introducing immigration reform bills.
The Senate bill, S.2611, proposes to increase security along the southern United
States border with Mexico, to allow long-time illegal immigrants to gain citizenship with
certain restrictions and to increase the number of guest workers over and above those
already present in the U.S. through a new “blue card” visa program.31 S.2611 passed in
the Senate with amendments on 5 May 2006, but has not yet passed in the House of
Representatives. The House of Representatives bill, H.R. 4437, was proposed in
December 2005 and sparked considerable immigrant rights protests over its contents.
H.R. 4437, also known as The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration
Control Act of 2005, seeks to raise penalties for illegal immigration. Among these
penalties include classifying unauthorized immigrants as felons.
Perhaps more
strenuously is the classification as felon of anyone who helps someone cross the border
illegally, or who assists in their illegal stay in the United States. H.R. 4437 was passed in
the House of Representatives, but is yet to be passed in the Senate.32 A crucial difference
between the Senate and House immigration legislation proposals is that S.2611
accommodates President Bush’s requests by establishing a guest worker system while
providing a means for illegal immigrants to eventually acquire citizenship, whereas
H.R.4437 seeks to accomplish President Bush’s objectives of national security by curbing
illegal immigration and strengthening border control.
31
S.2611, Library of Congress, 25 May 2006,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@L&summ2=m& (accessed 1 January 2007).
32
H.R.4437, Library of Congress, 2005, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4437.RFS: (accessed 1
January 2007).
Rutgers Model Congress
13
Current Status
H-2 Temporary Agricultural Program
The current method for bringing in
agricultural workers into the United States
is the H-2A non-immigrant visa. The H-2A
temporary agricultural program allows
employers who anticipate a shortage of
domestic workers to bring nonimmigrant
foreign workers to the United States. In
order to acquire H-2A temporary visas, an
employer must file an application with the
Department of Labor stating that there are
H-2A Visa Qualifying Criteria
The following general categories of individuals or
organizations may file an application:
• An agricultural employer who anticipates a
shortage of U.S. workers needed to perform
agricultural labor or services of a temporary
or seasonal nature.
•
The employer may be an individual
proprietorship, a partnership or a corporation.
An association of agricultural producers may
file as a sole employer, a joint employer with
its members, or as an agent of its members.
• An authorized agent, whether an individual
(e.g., and attorney) or an entity (e.g., an
association), may file an application on
behalf of an employer. Associations may file
master applications on behalf of their
members.
not enough workers who are “able, willing,
qualified, and available” and that the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the
wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.33
Regulations
provide for worker protections and employer requirements with respect to wages and
working conditions that do not apply to nonagricultural programs. The Department of
Labor defines “temporary” as employment performed at certain seasons of the year,
usually in relation to the production and/or harvesting of a crop, or for a limited time
period of less than one year when an employer can show that the need for the foreign
workers is truly temporary.34
An employer who files for H-2A temporary visas must meet a number of
regulations laid out by the Department of Labor. One of these considerations is that
employers must agree to engage in “independent positive recruitment of [United States]
33
“H-2A Certification,” Department of Labor, http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-2a.cfm (accessed 4 January
07)
34
Ibid
Rutgers Model Congress
14
workers” even if they are granted the temporary visas, and the recruitment must be “at
least equivalent to that conducted by non-H-2A agricultural employers in the same or
similar crops and area to secure U.S. workers.”35 Employers must guarantee that the
wages of H-2A workers are equal to those of domestic workers, provide free housing to
all workers who are not reasonably able to return to their residences the same day, and
give temporary workers three meals a day or free and convenient cooking facilities.
Temporary workers must be fully insured for worker’s compensation insurance, in the
event of an accident. Employers must hire any qualified and eligible U.S. worker who
applies for a job until fifty per cent of the period of the work contract has elapsed, and
employers are not allowed to fill vacant jobs with H-2A workers if the former occupant
of the job is on strike or is being locked out in the course of a labor dispute. For every
visa application filed and granted, employers must pay certification fees, ranging from
USD $100 to USD $1,000, depending on the employer, how many workers the employer
requested, and former history with the Department of Labor.36
While the H-2A non-immigrant visa has had a modest surge in popularity in recent
times, the 28,560 H-2A visa workers admitted in 1999 only made up some 2.38 per cent
of the total number of agricultural workers in the country.37 Statistics show that a
disproportionate number of H-2A visa recipients, forty-two per cent, work in tobacco
cultivation, whereas sixty-one per cent of farm workers in the United States work for
fruit, vegetable, or nut cultivation. The southeast benefits the most from the H-2A
program, accounting for more than half of the H-2A temporary workers visas.38
While the H-2A temporary visa program has been a critical step towards
agricultural immigration policy reform, it has done little to curb the amount of illegal
immigration into the United States or lessen the dependence of the agricultural sector on
foreign workers. Agricultural employers argue that the H-2A program is inflexible,
35
Ibid
Ibid
37
Colver and Wasem, 2
38
Ibid
36
Rutgers Model Congress
15
expensive, and makes employers unnecessarily vulnerable to costly investigations and
litigation. The time it takes for an H-2A application to be approved and for a worker to be
appropriately recruited and housed does not accommodate for actual crop growing cycles,
and because workers must be available to harvest and plant crops at specific times, the H2A program can be a detrimental hindrance to employers. An expansion of the H-2A
program could possibly cause employers to force down the wages paid to farm workers,
making the program a wage threat for domestic workers and potentially exacerbating
already inadequate working conditions. At the same time, scaling back the program to
reduce the administrative and regulative burden for the Department of Labor and
agricultural employers may weaken the protections in place for domestic workers while
also negating the benefits of the program.39
Perspectives on Immigration and the Agricultural Sector
According to a February 2006 report by the Economic Analysis Team of the
American Farm Bureau Federation, of all the major sectors of the United States economy,
agriculture is the most dependent on immigrant labor, specifically migrant labor.40 The
report concludes that the agricultural sector would suffer significant financial losses
without government programs facilitating the employment of immigrant farm laborers,
such as guest worker programs. The report also claims that if the agricultural sector’s
access to migrant laborers were cut off, as much as USD $5-9 billion in annual
production of commodities most sensitive to migrant labor would be lost and increase to
USD $6-12 billion as the time went on.41 Lack of immigrant labor would result in the
driving up of wages in order to attract domestic workers to the farm labor force, thereby
increasing the cost of the end product for consumers. According to the report, increased
wages would only exacerbate the overall losses in the agricultural sector.
39
Ibid
“Impact of Migrant Labor Restrictions on the Agricultural Sector,” American Farm Bureau, February 2006,
http://www.ediversitycenter.net/download/labor-econanal06206.pdf (accessed via Google Scholar, 2 January 2007)
41
Ibid
40
Rutgers Model Congress
16
Those who are in favor of the reduction of dependence on illegal immigrant labor
paint a similarly bleak picture in the event the illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in
the United States. Those who oppose guest worker programs and amnesty agreements
disagree with President Bush’s Guest Worker proposal, calling what Bush termed a “winwin situation” actually one detrimental to the economy. Professors Philip Martin of the
University of California at Davis and Michael Teitelbaum, both in favor of reducing
dependence on illegal immigration and eliminating temporary visa programs, argue that
virtually no low-wage “temporary worker” program in a high-wage liberal democracy
has ever turned out to be truly temporary. On the contrary, most initially small temporary
worker programs have grown much larger, and lasted far longer than originally
promised.42 Martin and Teitelbaum state that:
[h]istory has shown that in agriculture […] a pool of cheap workers gives farm owners strong
incentives to expand the planting of labor-intensive crops rather than invest in labor-saving
equipment and the crops suitable for it […]. [… P]olitical leaders have often belatedly discovered
that admitting temporary low-wage workers unnaturally sustains industries with low productivity
and wages, such as garment manufacturing, labor-intensive agriculture, and domestic services. In
consequence, the economy’s overall productivity and growth suffer.43
In addition to these economic harms, Martin and Teitelbaum also argue that temporary
workers are rarely temporary, costing the government and taxpayers billions each year.
For the United States, the permanent settlement of guest workers also tends to require
greater spending on social services than the government initially anticipated. Many
workers find ways to bring their families to join them, such as acquiring for American
citizenship, creating a large pool of poorly paid and often undereducated people. Martin
and Teitelbaum note that past temporary worker programs, such as the Bracero programs,
did not mitigate illegal immigration but instead exacerbated it, sparking illegal
immigration after the end of the program, and encouraging lackluster patrol of the
borders. Criticizing past immigration legislation, Martin and Teitelbaum claim that
42
Philip L. Martin and Michael S. Teitelbaum, “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers,” Foreign Affairs,
November/December 2001, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20011101FAESSAY5778//.html (accessed 2 January
2006)
43
Ibid.
Rutgers Model Congress
17
ineffective enforcement provisions and agriculture sector loopholes in laws allow more
unauthorized immigrants to enter the country and find farm work, and within a decade
most legalized farm workers had left agriculture for better-paid employment, only to be
replaced with unauthorized, illegal, non tax-paying immigrants.
Professors
George
Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard University have calculated that immigration in the
period from 1980 to 2000 might have reduced the earnings of native-born United States
workers by three or four per cent; however, these estimates are on the high end of
estimates by labor economists. Other labor economists, like Professor David Card of
University of California at Davis, have found negligible negative effects.44
Possible solutions proposed by those in academia vary. Professor Harry J. Holzer
of George Washington University suggests that it would be economically unwise to
drastically reduce the amount of immigration because employment shortfalls would be
exacerbated in key sectors, particularly agriculture. Professor Borjas of Harvard
University has proposed a change in the philosophy of United States immigration policy
by placing less emphasis on family ties and more emphasis on education and skill level.
However, Borjas’ suggestion may affect the agriculture sector drastically, considering
that the majority of migrant farm workers and immigrant agricultural workers are
minimally educated.45
Recent Events
The Great American Boycott (A Day Without an Immigrant)
In response to H.R. 4437, the March 25 Coalition of Catholic groups, immigration
advocacy organizations, and labor unions formed and sought ways to protest the
proposed legislation. The Coalition took its name from the date of the first major
immigrants rights protest in response to H.R. 4437. In April 2006, the Coalition
44
Harry J. Holzer, “Economic Impacts of Immigration,” Committee on Education and the Workforce, United States
House of Representatives, 16 November 2005, http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/900908_Holzer_111605.pdf
(accessed 3 January 2007)
45
Ibid
Rutgers Model Congress
18
announced the Great American Boycott, also known as A Day Without an Immigrant,
intended to demonstrate the importance and need for immigrant labor in all aspects of
life. The New York Times reported that it
[…] grew from an idea hatched by a small band of grass-roots advocates in Los Angeles, inspired
by the farmworker movement of the 1960’s led by Cesar Chavez and Bert Corona. Through the
Internet and mass media catering to immigrants, they developed and tapped a network of union
organizers, immigrant rights groups and others to spread the word and plan events tied to the
boycott, timed to coincide with International Workers’ Day.46
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters skipped work, school, and
shopping on 1 May 2006 and marched in dozens of cities from coast to coast. While the
boycott did not slow the nation to a grinding halt, effects of the boycott were clear.
Smithfield Foods of Virginia said that if workers came in on1 May, it would take time to
help employees write to U.S. senators and representatives with demands for changes in
immigration law, including “a path to citizenship for those who are willing to work,”
according to a company press release.47 Agricultural powerhouse Tyson Foods shut down
meatpacking plants on that day, citing market conditions and a possible shortage of
workers. Fruit and vegetable vendors across the country, along with some agribusinesses
like Cargill Meat Solutions, did not operate that day to honor the mission of the boycott.48
While the AFL-CIO took no position on the boycott, Linda Chavez-Thompson, its
executive vice president, said, “We believe that there is absolutely no good reason why
any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by
our laws and rules should be relegated to this repressive, second-class guest worker
status.”49
46
Randal C. Archibold, “Immigrants Take to U.S. Streets in Show of Strength,” New York Times, 2 May 2006,
accessed via NY Times Online,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/us/02immig.html?ex=1168146000&en=d6f3fe5cbccb1ce7&ei=5070,
(accessed 2 January 2007)
47
Brad Lendon, “U.S. prepares for ‘A Day Without an Immigrant’,” 1 May 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/boycott/ (accessed 2 January 2007)
48
Ibid
49
“Remarks by AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson at Immigration Press Briefing,” AFLCIO, 28 February 2006, http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/sp02282006.cfm (accessed 2 January 2007)
Rutgers Model Congress
19
Key Positions
While immigration reform is largely a partisan issue, immigration reform
pertaining to the agricultural sector has been also been a regional issue, as certain areas of
the United States are more affected by the presence of foreign-born agricultural workers
than other areas. With California as the country’s agricultural leader, Western states are
particularly affected by the presence of immigrant labor. California’s proximity to the
Mexican border provides California with a significant Mexican and Central American
population, many of whom are minimally educated and seek labor in the agricultural
sector. The Southeast benefits the most from the H-2A program and also recruits foreignborn laborers from the Caribbean. While these workers do contribute to the success of
regional agricultural production, immigrant laborers, especially undocumented laborers,
have proven to be a financial drain on the state governments of these areas. The children
of illegal immigrants are still entitled to a public school education according to the 1982
Supreme Court Plyer v. Doe ruling, and illegal immigrants still have access to social
services despite their non-taxpaying status. States with significant agricultural sectors
must take these issues into consideration when forming their policy positions.
Party Positions
Democratic Party
Democrats understand the need for immigrant laborers in the agricultural sector,
but also realize the financial burdens immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, place on
taxpayers. In order to address these burdens, Democrats favor amnesty in order to convert
non-taxpaying illegal immigrants that drain states of funding to tax-paying American
citizens.
Democrats are strongly opposed to H.R. 4437 because they feel it focuses on
immigration prevention and ignores associated issues having to do with immigration.
Instead, Democrats favor S. 2611, a bipartisan bill passed in the Senate. The bill includes
tougher border security provisions, a new immigrant guest-worker program and a path for
Rutgers Model Congress
20
millions of illegal immigrants to attain legal status. Democrats support guest-worker
programs because they ensure that agricultural employers are held accountable and
constantly reviewed by government bodies to ensure fair treatment to workers.
Democrats would favor programs that protect domestic workers and guarantee fair and
equal wages to all agricultural employees.
Republican Party
Republicans see foreign-born workers as a source of inexpensive labor that
benefits the American people, agricultural employers, and the economy in general.
Because of inexpensive labor, the prices of meat, dairy products, vegetables, and fruit are
relatively inexpensive. Employers make greater profit when paying less for labor,
investing more money into their businesses and in turn the economy. At the same time,
H.R. 4437, proposed by Republican Congressman James D. Sensenbrenner (R-WI),
recognized immigration as a significant security threat and sought to criminalize any
illegal immigration and anyone who aided them into the country or provided them work.
Republicans would be in favor of measures that strengthened the background checks for
foreign-born workers coming into the United States and also support guest-worker
programs.
While President Bush proposed a program similar to granting illegal immigrants
amnesty in 2004, he was hesitant to label his program as an amnesty program, saying,
“What I’ve just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those who have broken the law to
pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.”50
Republicans are generally not in favor of granting illegal immigrants amnesty just
because the undocumented immigrants have been in the country for a long period of time.
If some sort of amnesty program were to occur, there must be thorough background
50
Robert Scheer, “What Bush Got Right On Immigration,” San Francisco Chronicle, 17 May 2006,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/17/EDGHTISPQG1.DTL (accessed 4
January 2007)
Rutgers Model Congress
21
investigations, compensation paid by the immigrants for all taxes and fines owed, and
limitations on how many illegal immigrants can be granted amnesty per year.
Rutgers Model Congress
22
Summary
To some, especially agricultural employers, the agricultural sector’s dependence
on immigrant labor is not considered to be a problem. Rather, immigrant labor provides
an inexpensive and efficient source of labor, guaranteeing reasonable prices to consumers
and securing profits to agribusinesses. Conversely, the presence of immigrant labor, both
legal and undocumented, is seen as a threat to domestic workers in a variety of ways,
including wage competitiveness and job availability. Congress has difficulty addressing
this issue because of how crucial immigrant labor has been to agriculture in the past and
present, though some experts argue that new methods, like mechanization, can curb the
dependence on immigrant labor in the agricultural sector, if agricultural employers were
willing to invest in new technology.
The agricultural sector’s dependence on immigrant labor requires thoughtful,
detailed legislation addressing the complexities of this issue. In order to adequately
address this issue, the House Committee on Agriculture must focus on a number of key
points that fuel the agricultural immigration debate. The Committee should address the
reasons why agricultural employers resort to immigrant labor and whether there is an
adequate supply of domestic farm laborers. It should also evaluate the effects of foreignborn workers on the domestic worker and whether these effects are significant. The
effectiveness of current and past agricultural immigration reform policies, such as
amnesty and guest worker programs, and whether aspects of these programs should be
incorporated into solutions relevant for today’s circumstances should be taken into
consideration. House Agriculture must address the function and purpose of illegal
immigrants in the agricultural sector and what can be done to either prevent illegal
immigration or streamline the legalization of their status. Until these points are
thoroughly discussed, government action on immigrant labor in the agricultural sector
will remain at status quo, and the issue will continue to go unaddressed by Congress.
Rutgers Model Congress
23
Discussion Questions
• Why does the agricultural sector have such a reliance on immigrant labor? Are
there any ways to offset this dependence without hurting the agricultural sector?
• What role do illegal immigrants play in this discussion? How would the bolstering
of border patrols and the further restricting of undocumented immigration affect
the agricultural sector?
• Do guest-worker programs work? How can they be made more effective, if at all?
• Are temporary workers really temporary? What are some ways to ensure that
temporary workers will fulfill their contract and leave after a set time period
instead of remaining in the states?
• How can the H-2A visa program be improved? Would Congress be better off
constructing a completely new program or getting rid of it altogether?
• What are the differences and similarities of S.2166 and H.R. 4437? Which
proposed piece of legislation do you agree with, if either, and why? How can they
be improved or augmented?
• How can the government better protect domestic workers? Is there actually a
shortage of domestic workers, or are agricultural employers recalcitrant to hire
domestic workers or employ other methods to decrease their dependence on
foreign laborers?
Rutgers Model Congress
24
51
51
“The Foreign Born from Mexico in the United States,” Migration Information Source,
Rutgers Model Congress
25
Works Cited
Archibold, Randal C. “Immigrants Take to U.S. Streets in Show of Strength,” New York
Times, 2 May 2006, accessed via NY Times Online,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/us/02immig.html?ex=1168146000&en=d6f3
fe5cbccb1ce7&ei=5070.
Calavita, Kitty. “The Paradoxes of Race, Class, Identity, and ‘Passing’: Enforcing the
Chinese Exclusion Acts, 1882-1910” Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 25 Issue 1, 2000.
“Chinese Immigration to the United States, 1851-1900,” Rise of Industrial America,
Library of Congress, 2 February 2004,
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/riseind/chinimms/chinimms.html
Colver, Geoffrey K. and Wasem, Ruth Ellen. “Immigration of Agricultural Guest
Workers: Policy, Trends, and Legislative Issues,” Congressional Research Office,
Library of Congress, 24 January 2003, http://hutchison.senate.gov/RL30852.pdf
Durand, Jorge; Massey, Douglas S.; and Zenteno, Rene M. “Mexican Immigration to the
United States: Continuities and Changes,” Latin American Research Review.
University of Texas Press: 2001.
Ferriss, Susan and Sandoval, Ricardo. The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the
Farm Workers’ Movement Harcourt Brace & Company: 1997.
Friendly, Fred W. Harvest of Shame, CBS Broadcast International. Rpt. NY: Ambrose
Video, 1991.
Fuchs, Lawrence. “The Corpse That Would Not Die: The Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986,” Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, vol. 1,
1990.
“H-2A Certification,” Department of Labor, http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h2a.cfm.
Holzer, Harry J. “Economic Impacts of Immigration,” Committee on Education and the
Workforce, United States House of Representatives, 16 November 2005,
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/900908_Holzer_111605.pdf.
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2002_value.asp (accessed 6 January 2007)
Rutgers Model Congress
26
H.R.4437, Library of Congress, 2005, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c109:H.R.4437.RFS:
“Immigration Reform: Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act of 2003
(AgJOBS),” National Immigration Forum, 2003,
http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=661
“Impact of Migrant Labor Restrictions on the Agricultural Sector,” American Farm
Bureau, February 2006, http://www.ediversitycenter.net/download/laboreconanal06206.pdf
Jachimowicz, Maia “Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program,” Migration
Policy Institute, February 1, 2004,
http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=202
Joppke, Christian. “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration,” World Politics,
vol. 50, 1998.
Lendon, Brad. “U.S. prepares for ‘A Day Without an Immigrant’,” 1 May 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/boycott/.
Martin, Philip L. and Teitelbaum, Michael S. “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers,”
Foreign Affairs, November/December 2001,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20011101FAESSAY5778//.html.
Raupp, Brian. “Chicanas in the Labor Unions,” University of Wisconsin Working Paper
Series, http://www.chicla.wisc.edu/brian1.htm.
“Remarks by AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson at
Immigration Press Briefing,” AFL-CIO, 28 February 2006,
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/sp02282006.cfm.
S.2611, Library of Congress, 25 May 2006, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02611:@@@L&summ2=m&.
Scheer, Robert. “What Bush Got Right On Immigration,” San Francisco Chronicle, 17
May 2006, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/17/EDGHTISPQG1.DTL
Schuck, Peter.”The Meaning of 187,” The American Prospect, Issue 85, 1995.
Rutgers Model Congress
27
“The Foreign Born from Mexico in the United States,” Migration Information Source,
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2002_value.asp
“The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market,” Congressional Budget Office, 25
November 2005, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6853/11-10immigration.pdf
“The Value of Undocumented Workers,” The American Immigration Law Foundation,
http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2002_value.asp
Vernez, George and Ronfelt, David. “The Current Situation in Mexican Immigration,”
Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991.
Weisseinger, George. “The Illegal Alien Problem: Enforcing the Immigration Laws,”
New York Institute of Technology, 7 November 2003, http://www.immigrationusa.com/george_weissinger.html.