No announcement yet.

Article: How Inaction on Immigration Impacts the Agricultural Economy. By Paul McDaniel


  • Article: How Inaction on Immigration Impacts the Agricultural Economy. By Paul McDaniel

    How Inaction on Immigration Impacts the Agricultural Economy



    Due to its geographic diversity and natural resource abundance, the United States is one of the world’s leading agricultural producers and suppliers. Indeed, the $374 billion U.S. agriculture sector is critical to the U.S. economy, but its health depends on a functioning immigration system. From migrant workers on farms, to foreign-born scientists at agribusiness and agricultural research centers, immigrant labor is important for U.S. agriculture, and analysts predict that in the absence of immigration reform, the growth of the entire sector may stall.

    At an event Tuesday on immigration, agriculture, and the economy, panelists described how the status quo is harmful to employers, workers, the broader economy, and food security. Stephanie Mercier, with the Farm Journal Foundation, and author of Employing Agriculture: How the Midwest Farm Sector Relies on Immigrant Labor, observed that between 2000 and 2012, “U.S. consumption of fresh produce rose by 10.5 percent, while U.S. production rose only 1.4 percent. As a result, imports of fresh fruits and vegetables have increased by 38 percent over that period, with imports in several categories spiking well over 100 percent.” And citing a previous study, she notes that labor supply challenges and H-2A visa shortcomings are key factors in a 27 percent decline in market share for U.S. growers, accounting for $3.3 billion in missed GDP growth and $1.4 billion in unrealized farm income for 2012.

    Another panelist, Craig Regelbrugge, with AmericanHort, observed on AgriTalk radio that immigrants working in the agriculture sector are helping to create jobs for U.S. workers by enabling us to produce in the United States:

    “And when we produce here we are generating thousands upon thousands of jobs that are not on the farm necessarily. They’re related to inputs that the farmer must buy in order to produce. They’re related to things that must happen after the crop or product leaves the farm. The multiplier effect for each farmworker is said to be somewhere between 2 and 3 jobs that are created here…If we become reliant on Canada, Mexico, Central America, and…China to feed us, most of the jobs that exist here in agriculture will go offshore to support us.”

    Describing the perspective of farmworkers, Adrienne DerVartanian, with Farmworker Justice, noted that “when you have a majority undocumented workforce, you have a workforce that’s fearful of defending their workplace rights, of seeking improved wages and working conditions.” She explained that farmworkers should be presented with an opportunity to have lawful permanent residency and a path to citizenship, which would stabilize the agricultural labor force and result in higher wages and better working conditions. Employers would benefit through higher retention rates and improved productivity, subsequently benefitting our nation through greater food security and food safety.

    Panelists agreed that the future of agriculture in this country and the ability to feed ourselves is very much connected with immigration. “Clearly, U.S. agriculture in the Midwest and elsewhere in the country really needs significant reforms to how the current U.S. immigration system works,” Mercier said. “The current stalemate is very frustrating to a lot of farmers because it’s forcing them to rethink how they operate their farms, what kind of crops they plant, in a way that’s very limiting to their ability to run a good business.” Regelbrugge explained the adverse effect of delaying immigration reform:

    “The do-nothing strategy is a net loser because the reality is new folks aren’t coming in, and there is over time going to be attrition of the existing workforce…It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist or rocket scientist to figure out how to solve agriculture’s problem.”

    Foreign-born workers are crucial to agriculture in the United States. By instituting meaningful reforms to meet current and future needs, while protecting workers and their families, we can ensure more of the food we eat is produced here.

    Photo Courtesy of Bread for the World.

    This post originally appeared on Immigration Impact. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    	Paul McDaniel Paul McDaniel is the Immigrant Entrepreneur and Innovation Fellow at the Immigration Policy Center. Previously, he served as Project Researcher in the Center for Citizenship and Immigrant Communities at Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). Prior to his work at CLINIC, Paul was a Researcher at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he worked on several community-based research projects with the Department of Family Medicine at Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Museum of the New South, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, Crossroads Charlotte, Latin American Coalition, and Community Building Initiative. He has worked on reports and presentations about immigrant entrepreneurship, immigrant settlement and integration in new immigrant gateways and destinations, immigrant access to education and healthcare, and community receptivity. Paul recently completed his Ph.D. dissertation in Geography and Urban Regional Analysis from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and holds an M.S. in Geography from the University of Tennessee, an M.A. in Educational Leadership from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a B.S. in Geography from Samford University.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.





    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles


    • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
      Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
      08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
    • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
      Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

      CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

      Presidential use of "national security"
      08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM