Farmers Oppose G.O.P. Bill on Immigration

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

PATTERSON, Calif. — Farmers across the country are rallying to fight a Republican-sponsored bill that would force them and all other employers to verify the legal immigration status of their workers, a move some say could imperil not only future harvests but also the agricultural community’s traditional support for conservative candidates.

The bill was proposed by Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It would require farmers — who have long relied on a labor force of immigrants, a majority here without legal documents — to check all new hires through E-Verify, a federal database run by the Department of Homeland Security devised to ferret out illegal immigrants.

Farm laborers, required like other workers to show that they are authorized to take jobs in the United States, often present Social Security numbers and some form of picture ID. Employers, many of them labor contractors providing crews to farms, have not been required to check the information and are discouraged by antidiscrimination laws from looking at it too closely. But it is an open secret that many farmworkers’ documents are false.

Supporters of E-Verify, an electronic system that is currently mandatory for most federal contractors but voluntary for other employers, argue that it would eliminate any doubt about workers’ legal status. But farmers say it could cripple a $390 billion industry that relies on hundreds of thousands of willing, low-wage immigrant workers to pick, sort and package everything from avocados to zucchini.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/politics/31verify.html?pagewanted=all

---

Well...are there NOT plenty of US CITIZENS willing to do the work? This is a rare time that I'd support a Republican-backed bill, what about you if you believe in good-paying jobs for Americans? Further in the article: "Democrats have said they will point to a Congressional Budget Office report on a similar bill that concluded it would cost the federal government $22 billion over a decade."

[RZM]

1. I believe Obama has hinted that he will address immigration if he wins a second term

That is going to be a VERY interesting debate, because you've got some strange bedfellows on this one. It won't be a party line thing by any stretch of the imagination.

[stubtoe]

12. Probably nothing will change.

I suspect this is red meat for the "base" who rail against illegal immigrants. Sort of like abortion and gay marriage, the Repubs claim to be against it but are unwilling to address this thorny issue in any meaningful way. Why? Because ag votes Republican.

[RZM]

24. That's all very true

I agree completely that Republicans like to pretend to play to their base on this but never really do shit because the moneyed Republican interests have no desire whatsoever to cut off their supply of cheap labor. Remember a few months ago when Lindsay Graham was publicly flirting with doing something about birthright citizenship? Same thing there . . . he can dance around that issue all he wants because he knows he'll never have to actually cast a vote on it.

But, stricter enforcement does have decent support and that support goes far beyond Republicans. A Rasmussen poll last year put support for Arizona's SB 1070 at 55 percent (and 71 percent in Arizona). You can't get those kinds of numbers with Republicans alone, especially since some Republicans don't even support enforcement.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-28/news/27071095_1_immigration-law-immigration-status-arrests-of-illegal-immigrants

That's why I think this could get very interesting. You might end up seeing a strange alliance of Republican business interests, hardcore progressives, and the elite Democratic establishment opposing enforcement and a motley collection of everybody else on the other side. The former alliance will be a fragile one though, with the progressives and DNC types arguing for amnesty with the business interests wanting to keep the illegals' status in limbo, since all they really want from them is their labor.

[pampango]

26. You are right about the "strange alliance" and the "motley collection".

"You might end up seeing a strange alliance of Republican business interests, hardcore progressives, and the elite Democratic establishment opposing enforcement and a motley collection of everybody else on the other side. The former alliance will be a fragile one though, with the progressives and DNC types arguing for amnesty with the business interests wanting to keep the illegals' status in limbo, since all they really want from them is their labor."

I think you've already seen that in the southern republican-run states like Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana. The republican business interests, civil rights groups, Democratic politicians and "hardcore (?) progressives" have fought against the tough immigration enforcement laws passed in those states recently. The force behind the passage of these tough laws has been largely tea party groups and the republican base-not too surprising since they are all have republican legislatures and republican governors. (There may have been some progressives involved in this "motley collection" but I haven't read about them. ;) )

I think you are right that when you predict that the "alliance" opposing these "enforcement only" laws will fracture when it comes to a "path to citizenship" (to avoid using the rw's "A" word). Civil rights groups, "hardcore" progressives and the "elite Democratic establishment" (unions, Obama, etc.) favor a comprehensive solution which includes this, while "republican business interests" don't want to see it happen because it eliminates the "exploitability" of these immigrants.

It will be interesting to see if the "motley collection" that includes "everybody else" (teabaggers, non-"hardcore" progressives, others?) will prove to be as "fragile" over something like whether enforcement should be the only thing used to solve the immigration problem or whether other policies should be added to the mix. My perception of teabaggers and the republican base is that anything besides "enforcement, enforcement, enforcement" is described as "amnesty". The non-"hardcore" progressives may (or may not) view the solution in a more nuanced way.

[RZM]

27. It's not hard to frame enforcement

Right now the force is the hard right but the appeal isn't there alone. Rounding up families by the thousands and deporting them en masse will never be remotely considered. But much more aggressive enforcement might end up in the compromise. That may be the give and take on this - granting one side gains on the status of the existing undocumented population in exchange for more aggressive measures toward the future undocumented population. If people already here are conceived of as a bloc, then what they receive and are denied will be critical in bargaining process. You can secure a lot on the enforcement end if you're prepared to go far on the existing status issue.

The whole enforcement issue is about the future. How much larger do you make the legal valve to account for immigration from the south? Plenty of people will want the answer to be a lot. Those include Republican money, top Democrats, and the most dedicated progressives (sorry 'hardcore' raised your eyebrows). Everybody else will end up at not very much. Many will be Republicans. But not all of them.

Enforcement is alone now because the status of the current population isn't really on the table in a meaningful way. That accounts for the scattered popping up of hard right led enforcement only legislation. Once the real fight starts, they won't be the sole owners of enforcement.

[former9thward]

2. Farmers don't want legal workers.

They want people who they can pay low wages and will not complain or even think about unionization.

[alp227]

3. then they should face the legal consequences for doing so n/t

[naaman fletcher]

15. It's not that simple..

because agriculture is a global market thanks to "free" trade, they are competing with people who pay their workers far less than what they even pay illegals here. If they had to pay domestic, legal, wages, they would not be able to compete.

The point is, in free trade, with a global market for labor, US wages HAVE TO GO DOWN. It's simple supply and demand math. Either we all say "that's cool", or we recognize that maybe while free trade is a fine idea in theory, it has to be implemented slowly, over a period of generations at least.

[No Elephants]

20. Illegals? In any case, you've given more good reasons to buy from small, local farmers.

[FreakinDJ]

17. DING DING DING - We have a Winner Folks

[bloomington-lib]

4. If farmers do not want republican policies then they need to stop voting for them

May you get what you wish for

[Tumbulu]

9. good point! (nt)

[Vogon_Glory]

22. Agreed

If farmers and ranchers don't like Republican policies, they SHOULD stop voting for them. For the last few election cycles, I've noted what parts of my state vote for Democrats and what parts of my state vote for Republicans. The rural parts of Texas almost always vote Republican.


Well, if they want to (Phillips-head) themselves, they can continue to vote Republican.

[roseBudd]

5. US citizens are not physically fit to do this work

[former9thward]

6. Bullshit.

[Tumbulu]

8. You are right

And most cannot work the long hours ag demands.

Farmers all pay at least minimum wage and withholding, etc.

It is not the pay, it is the capacity to do the work that is often described as unskilled when it is not.

[jwirr]

11. I would guess that most DUers who want to send US workers into

the fields have never been there themselves. I have. My niece also followed the pickers around the country. First it is hot hard dirty work. You work long hours because the timing in farming is vital to the success of the crop. You get wages but no benefits. Then if you happen to be doing what my niece did and hit the road you will find that the housing etc the farmers offer their workers is substandard at best. If you take your children on the road with you they will not have schooling and they will most likely take care of themselves during the day while you work.

I cannot see many of us willing to do that. I was 23 years old with 3 children (one severely disable) and living on welfare. The local farm job were the only one that would pay me cash so I did not have to report it. So I worked there. I did it for about 3 years and my niece did it for 2. We would not go back.

If the farmer raises wages enough to cover all the bad housing, lack of care for the children, schooling then he may be able to attract a few more workers who are not desperate. If he does not raise the wages he will have his crops rotting in the fields like they already do in Georgia.

I have long supported a visitor worker program to cover this need. It could still have a claus in it that would require the farmer to hire local workers first.

When it comes to immigration workers programs I am not worried about these low pay hard to do jobs. What disturbs me are the higher paying jobs we are losing to illegals = jobs in packing plants, jobs in construction, etc. That is where I think we should be concentrating our efforts.

[devilgrrl]

23. Great post!

:thumbsup:

[roseBudd]

25. The people who can do this kind of physical labor, don't ride in cars from infancy on, they walk

everywhere

Where I was in Jamaica, flew into Mo Bay, but then drove over the mountain to the southwest coast and then up the coast to Negril. the vast majority of from A to B is walking

[MellowDem]

30. It's still bullshit...

there are quite enough Americans physically fit enough to do that kind of work. Indeed, there are jobs filled by Americans that are just as or more demanding. So, it was a completely ignorant, bullshit answer.

What Americans are opposed to is working for shit wages, in shit conditions. That is the problem. With any hard labor that takes a toll on the body, wages should reflect that, as should work conditions. Farmers can take advantage of illegal labor and work them down much faster.

You're making excuses for modern day semi-slave labor against a second class of people that will never complain.

[RZM]

32. There it is

I don't get how people who support paying Americans decent wages for any other job suddenly decide we are pampered wimps for not wanting to go out in the fields for pennies a bushel. Are we also wimps for not wanting to operate a lathe, flip burgers, or answer phones for $7.25 an hour and no health care?

NOBODY should have to work in shit conditions for shit wages. The fact that some people will do it anyway doesn't say a whole lot about those who won't.

[bloomington-lib]

7. Costs more to deport

According to the ICE the average cost of deportation is $12500
Last year it cost 5 billion to deport a little less than 400,000 people.

According to the US DOL "Farm workers had low individual earnings from farm work; the median income from farm work was between $2,500 and $5,000. Three-fourths earned less than $10,000 annually."

http://blog.chron.com/immigration/2011/01/ice-reveals-cost-for-deporting-each-illegal-immigrant/
http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/report/ch3.cfm

[alp227]

14. more than what? Implementing E-verify, and welfare (if the immigrant has US-born kids)?

[pampango]

10. Look Lamar Smith and the tea party are for it and the Progressive Caucus and labor oppose it.

And Smith is not just an (R) is a member of the tea party caucus in the house.

Obama's administration is the one implementing e-verify so it's not like it's a concept that he opposes. The reason the administration, the progressive caucus and organized labor oppose Smith's "enforcement only" bill is that it's not a part of a comprehensive reform solution. It's the repubs taking the parts they want, firing up their base about the invasion of the "illegals", than walking away from a comprehensive solution.

The tea party, on the other hand, is quite happy with Smith.

Texas: Tea party behind E-Verify push.......http://www.scntx.com/articles/2011/06/09/plano_star-courier/news/9028.txt
Dear Patriots, Please support E-Verify as a keystone to our immigrations. .......http://teapartywest.com/?p=2256
Florida: Florida Tea Party Activists Demand Action on E-Verify......http://www.usbc.org/national-security/immigration-news/florida-tea-party-activists-demand-action-on-e-verify/
Rhode Island: We Need You at E-Verify Hearing........http://www.riteaparty.com/press_releases/view/325/we_need_you_at_e_verify_hearing

There's plenty more but you get the idea. If a conservative wacko like Lamar Smith thinks it's a good idea, it's probably not.

[nikto]

13. Most farmers are Conservative Rural Republicans--This just shows their hypocrisy

Everything changes when it is the RIGHTIES who actually have to sacrifice.

Better to starve old ladies instead (or better yet, bomb dark-skinned children
in faraway lands).:mad: :puke:

Just don't step on my exploitation of little people!


Rural farmers are some of the most RightWing folks around (I grew up among 'em,
and that's what I saw).:eyes:

[murielm99]

19. Not all.

My husband certainly is not. Neither was his father. And we have some liberal farmers in our county Democratic central committee.

My husband's family is from Iowa. We have some property there. We know many liberal farmers.

Most of the farmers in Minnesota, where my family came from, are Democrats.

If you are talking about big ag, sure. They are repub. But not all family farmers think that way. And there are still family farmers. They find many other resourceful ways to earn a living, in addition to farming.

[FreakinDJ]

16. They should try a LEGAL H2A Labor Contractor

Before it became popular to use illegal labor and the Federal Government looked the other way there used to be Legal H2A Contractors that would provide the labor these farmers needed.

Of course hiring the illegals directly Cut Out the middle man, paying workmen's Comp insurance, providing transportation, providing housing and many other EMPLOYEE Benefits

AND Yes - California keeps a data base of LEGAL H2A Contractors - http://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/dlselr/farmlic.html

[riderinthestorm]

18. I'm a farmer and I use E-verify and I still find that some employees are illegal, years later

Many immigrants are using valid numbers that are stolen. Until the holder of that number decides to retire, they have no idea that an illegal immigrant is using their number (and adding to their Social Security benefits!)

The employees I've hired, I check on E-Verify but it's certainly the case that the IRS has contacted me about some employees, usually a decade or more later, to tell me that the number was valid but not assigned to "my" employee. People who doctor papers are savvy to E-Verify and understand how to circumvent the process. It's absolutely NOT foolproof, nor even productive. I have very few employees and if I've come across it, the major AG employers have too.

I suspect the big AG companies just don't want the hassle of checking the numbers since so many of them will be "legal". They don't even want to waste a single second checking when (and yes it IS an open secret), everyone knows they are probably illegal.

But we are NOT allowed to discriminate so if a hispanic person shows up and has all the right skills, AND has the proper paperwork, I will hire. So will the big AG corps.

[boppers]

28. What percentage fail "immediately"?

Is the system useful at all?

[riderinthestorm]

31. I don't know but that would be an important question to ask. For me, none have failed immediately nt

[No Elephants]

21. What kind of farmers are we talking? Big, factory farmers or

the guy they singled out in the story:

"That sentiment is echoed by growers like George Bonacich, an 81-year-old apricot farmer who has been working the same patch of land in Patterson, 80 miles east of San Francisco, since 1969."

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Bonacich is typical.

[indurancevile]

29. No problem; congress is working on the alternate labor supply as we speak.