The Corner

Immigration

The ‘Farm Workforce Modernization Act’

Field workers pick strawberries on a farm in Oxnard, Calif., in 2013. (Reuters photo: Gus Ruelas)

David Bier of the Cato Institute draws attention to a new immigration bill that is likely to pass the Democratic House but will presumably struggle in the Republican Senate — to say nothing of the White House.

This is a piece of legislation with a lot of technical detail to it, including changes to the minimum-wage requirements for legal-immigrant agricultural workers, and it’s going to require a very close reading by a lot of seasoned immigration lawyers. (See also this section-by-section and this more readable fact sheet.) But one way to think about the central dilemma it poses is this: How much are immigration skeptics willing to pay for E-Verify?

That’s a program employers can use to make sure they’re hiring legal workers. The bill would not only improve it, but mandate its use within the agricultural sector. This is a pretty big concession, and the other side should be willing to give something up for it.

But the bill seems to take E-Verify as a license to just give the entire store away to agricultural interests and pro-immigration activists. Illegal immigrants who could show 180 days of agricultural employment in the past two years and pass a background check would be eligible for legal status and eventually a path to a green card — just for being agricultural workers. Their spouses and minor kids could get legal status too. Legal immigration for agricultural workers would also get a big boost, with 40,000 new green cards annually. Meanwhile, agricultural workers on temporary H-2A visas could be sponsored for green cards and could stay in the country indefinitely while their applications were processed. H-2As would also be made available to employers who need year-round, not just seasonal, labor.

For good measure, the bill tosses in some ridiculous pork to (as the aforementioned fact sheet puts it) “improve[] the availability of farmworker housing while lowering employer costs related to providing such housing.” This includes a billion dollars “to rehabilitate housing that is aging out of USDA incentive programs,” a tripling of funding for housing-construction loans and grants, and more funding for rental assistance. In other words, the bill lets agricultural businesses bring in more foreign labor, and then uses taxpayer money to subsidize the costs of bringing in that labor.

The bill’s drafters are right that they could ask for a lot in return for mandating E-Verify in the agricultural sector. But they got a little carried away there.

Most Popular

Culture

‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’

It was just one more segment to fill out the hour, and thereby fill the long 24 hours of Saturday’s cable news on November 2. Or so it seemed. Navy SEAL Mike Ritland was on the Fox News program Watters World to talk to Jesse Watters about trained German shepherds like the one used in the raid that found ... Read More
Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
U.S.

What Happened to California Republicans?

From 1967 to 2019, Republicans controlled the California governorship for 31 of 52 years. So why is there currently not a single statewide Republican officeholder? California also has a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Only seven of California’s 53 ... Read More