
Can America's Farms Survive the Threat of Deportations? - pmcpinto
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/can-americas-farms-survive-the-threat-of-deportations/529008/?single_page=true
======
michaelt
I'm sympathetic to farmers and immigrants both - but the current situation
seems completely against every principle America and the constitution stand
for. Undocumented immigrants seem pretty close to a slave class. They don't
get a vote, they don't get basic rights like a safe workplace, and they can't
rely on the protection of the law.

If a worker can't go to the cops for fear of deportation, why should an
employer pay their last paycheck, or compensate them if they lose a hand in an
unsafe machine? Much cheaper to just tell them to take a hike.

And it's not just employers - someone doesn't like your political opinions, or
your driving, or the colour you've painted your front door? Better watch out!

Seems to me there's never going to be a serious political effort to allow
seasonal migrant workers in legally, when employing them illegally gives you
so much more power. Proper enforcement of existing laws could be a catalyst
for reform that sorts out H2-A and actually gives these guys a basic set of
rights.

~~~
staticelf
I think the US should have a more generous immigration policy and actually let
people in to the society in an easier way.

However, isn't undocumented just another word for illegal? At least that is
what it means in my country. If a person is breaking the law and is being in a
country even if they're not allowed maybe they just have to suit themselves?

~~~
cabaalis
The use of the word illegal is unpopular in the US because it is politically
incorrect to refer to a "person" and not an "action" as illegal. There are all
kinds of politics involved: identity, race, and the belief that the left wing
sees them as a voting base and the right sees them as cheap labor.

Either way, they are being exploited to their fullest potential, and will
continue to be exploited until they are no longer useful to the political
parties (frankly.)

~~~
staticelf
Yeah sure, but isn't it the action of being in the country that you refer to
as illegal? A person cannot be illegal, that makes no sense.

I guess they are but even if my country has one of the softest immigration
policies we also have undocumented people that are here illegally. However, I
want my government to remove these people in my country from my country since
they are breaking the law by being here.

I understand if there's people in the US that think the same way. Altough you
have much, much stricter immigration rules than we do.

------
throwaway-1209
This could be rephrased as "can Amerca's farms exist without breaking the
law". The answer to which is, of course, yes. It is illegal in this country to
employ a noncitizen without a work visa. It is also illegal to pay less than
minimum wage. I'm not even talking about the ethical aspects of pulling the
rug from unskilled domestic workforce by hiring illegal workers. Not even
Obama hesitated to deport illegals in record numbers.

~~~
awjr
This argument is similar to the one used to justify Brexit, that immigrants
are in some way taking farm jobs away from locals.

The reality though is very different. The jobs that are seasonal, tough, and
do not pay well. Literaly the way nature works requires a transient workforce
to harvest produce.

We need to accept that many farms are reliant on cheap migrant labour and that
this needs accommodating.

We're putting our ability to feed ourselves as a country at risk.

~~~
DanBC
Why does the transient workforce have to be undocumented migrants from a
different country, and not people from a poor part of the US with high
unemployment?

~~~
LoSboccacc
minimum wage laws, safety and security laws, etc

they don't need it per se but sure helps the bottom line

------
imgabe
They know where the farms are that employ the illegal immigrants, so why not
arrest the employers? They're clearly breaking the law. I have sympathy for
how hard it must be to run a profitable farm, but if it has to be done with
illegal labor, then clearly we're not paying the true price of what the
produce should cost.

Hire people who can work here legally. Pay them at least minimum wage. If that
means apples cost $20 / lb, then the market can decide if we value apples
enough to pay that.

Yes, some farms will close, but if they're only able to be kept open by
exploiting vulnerable workers who don't have the legal protections that
everyone else does, then they probably should close.

------
Aoyagi
Yes, there are plenty of students who could really use seasonal jobs now taken
by illegal aliens.

------
c517402
IIRC what my mother said, sixty years ago high schools let students attend
half days so they could do seasonal farm labor. That seems like something that
could be re-instituted in areas that need seasonal farm labor.

------
owengriffiths
A lot of pro-immigration people quote that figure about illegal immigrants
paying taxes, as though paying even a single dollar in tax represents a new
benefit to government finances. However, the government needs to collect more
tax than they spend for an immigrant to be a net benefit.

The $11bn in tax revenue works out at around $600 / capita per year (there are
around 17 million people living in illegal immigrant headed households).

For reference, the (limited) welfare state in the US spends around $3,000 /
capita and total government spending is around $17,000 per capita.

------
madiathomas
It is not just the US having this problem. We have same situation in South
Africa. Currently, majority of waiters and farm labourers are illegal
immigrants from our unfortunate neighbouring countries who are experiencing
political challenges. I doubt even the poorest locals will even want to work
for what these illegal immigrants are working for. There is no political will
to end this modern day slavery because it is profitable and making things
cheaper. Cheaper to those using them because the benefits are not trickling
down to the consumer.

From time to time, there will be xenophobic attacks because of this problem
and scores of illegal immigrants will be killed. For over 10 years now, the
problem is still there and no political will to solve it. In turn, we decided
to make our borders porous. Allowing them to get in. We do deport them from
time to time, only for them to come back. Problem is that not every illegal
immigrant is here to work for peanuts. Some come to conduct the business of
crime. Which is a bigger problem than someone stealing jobs locals aren't
interested in doing.

I am starting to believe that the whole capitalism system thrives on slavery
of some sort. Cheap labour results in good profit.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I am starting to believe that the whole capitalism system thrives on
> slavery of some sort. Cheap labour results in good profit._

It does, though it isn't an _inherent_ part of capitalism - just the obvious
outcome if nothing is done to prevent it. The market puts a strong pressure on
lowering costs, and it takes only one bad actor to throw away some ethical
value to cut costs, and all the other players need to either follow suit or
face being priced out of the market. The solution is to make it so that
throwing away ethical concerns _doesn 't reduce costs_.

The point I'm making here is that this is not the fault of capitalism per se,
much like gasoline is itself not "evil". It's the fault of irresponsible
application of capitalism, without covering the spots where it leads to
dangerous outcomes. Much like putting gasoline in a properly designed
combustion engine leads to a different outcome than pouring it on the floor
and lighting a match.

(The solution is further complicated by that, in a globalized economy, it
takes one country to refrain from protecting the workers and most of the abuse
will quickly shift to that country. See e.g. how clothes are made.)

------
kbart
Of course they can. The only drawback could be slight increase in food prices,
for which Americans pay too little anyway (compared to the rest of the
world)[0], but it's a small price to pay for abolishing slavery.

0\. [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-
mu...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-much-each-
country-spends-on-food/)

------
albertini_89
Would you let a stranger sneak in your house? That's pretty simple, nowadays
people are like poor Mexicans, don't deport them : Who is going to work in our
farms, wash our cars, clean our shit? So fucking racist, in the other side,
one of the country that deport more inmigrants in LatinAmerica is Mexico

------
ygaf
To adapt a youtube meme: "Article starts at the second chapter".

------
MichaelBurge
If you take the principle "No taxation without representation" seriously, then
it seems like you have 3 choices: A. Give illegal immigrants the right to vote
B. Give them huge tax breaks or C. Deport them.

A allows you to stuff the ballots by importing people from regions that tend
to vote for your ideas. There's, what, 20-30 million illegal immigrants? So
not a trivial concern. And since they have shared cultural backgrounds, there
are correlations in how they vote.

B is unfair to the existing citizens, who pay taxes that the immigrants
benefit would benefit from. 73% of Central America & Mexican immigrants use
some kind of welfare:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM)

C could lead to a situation where everybody wants an existing population of
immigrants to stay, and yet they have to be deported to conform to some
abstract principle. If e.g. the state of California wanted unlimited
immigration, agreed to pay for sufficient tracking(to the satisfaction of the
other 49 states) to guarantee that they stay in the state and didn't vote in
federal elections, should they be allowed to keep a underclass of foreigners
that consent to it?

Also on C, is it inhumane to allow illegal immigrants to work without
benefits, below minimum wages, and without any say in their community, even
though it's with the consent of everyone directly involved? It sounds
unintuitive to me, but I suppose you already have that problem with existing
employment law(Why is it illegal for certain employers to offer jobs without
healthcare coverage, even though all involved consent?)

For the farms mentioned in the article, probably stepping up enforcement on
existing illegal farm workers but making it easier to get an H2-A would be
uncontroversial. The workers would probably leave after the harvest season
anyways, if they could be assured to easily return next year? And the employer
could be taxed rather than the worker.

~~~
geomark
Your question re point C is a good one. Some might call it inhumane, but the
reason everyone directly involved consents is that the workers have it much
better doing this work than their alternatives back home. So is it more humane
to take away the better job?

Also along this line of questioning, is it reasonable to call them slaves
because they choose a job that others find inhumane but is much better than
what they had before?

~~~
DarkKomunalec
The argument that they should come to the US, because farming jobs are there,
is a bit circular.

If the US suddenly loses a lot of cheap labour, that means some other country
gains it, and can run farms using it, exporting the produce to the US. I.e.,
the jobs can move.

