AgJOBS Bills

S. 1645 and H.R. 3142, the so-called AgJOBS companion bills contain something for everyone - except if you happen to be a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen or legal resident of the United States. On the other hand, if you happen to be an illegal alien or a big agricultural employer seeking a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor this legislation is a dream come true.

These bills would provide a sweeping amnesty for hundreds of thousands - and potentially millions - of current illegal aliens and their families, while the U.S. agricultural industry would never again have to worry about having to pay higher wages or concern themselves with immigration law enforcement authorities. Adoption of this legislation would mean a ready supply of foreign "guest workers" with almost no restrictions on their wages and working conditions.

While the benefits to millions of illegal aliens and a relative handful of agricultural employers would be tangible, the one promise to the American public - that it would curtail rampant illegal immigration - is not worth the government paper it is printed on. The legislation contains no enforceable provisions that would discourage millions more people from entering the U.S. illegally, or deter employers from hiring them.

Earned Legalization = Amnesty

No matter what euphemisms the sponsors of S.1645 employ, the bill would effectively grant legal status to potentially millions of people who are in the country illegally. In plain English that is an amnesty. The only difference between this bill and other proposals to amnesty millions of illegal aliens is that it places them in an interim "guest worker" status along the road to legal permanent residency.

As a matter of principle, most Americans object to rewarding people who have broken our laws and who have jumped to the head of the immigration queue. Amnesty would also renege on a promise made by Congress in 1986 that, the amnesty adopted that year was a regrettable but unavoidable course of action that would never be repeated.

In addition to objections in principle, these bills are deeply flawed and would create countless new problems:

Potential for massive fraud. For one thing, the government lacks the manpower and financial resources to properly investigate the authenticity of the millions of amnesty applications that would likely result from passage of this bill. Moreover, the very "evidence" that people would present to support their claims is inherently suspect because it would rely on documentation of people who have lived and worked in the United States under a variety of false identities. As occurred in the 1986 amnesty, when perhaps 70 percent of the supposed agricultural workers filed fraudulent applications, the inevitable result would be that untold numbers of fraudulent claims would be approved. The fraud prevention measures of the current bill are even weaker than those that are widely acknowledged to have failed in 1986.

Weak requirements for documentation to support amnesty claims. An amnesty applicant would be able to support a claim by using uncorroborated third party affidavits attesting to the fact that he or she has been in the country for a sufficient period and has met the agricultural work requirements. Documents containing false identities used by an alien would also be accepted as proof of eligibility. Passage of this legislation would create a boon for document counterfeiters.

Expanded confidentiality provisions to protect criminals and terrorists. The motto of S. 1645 might be "no illegal alien left behind." Even illegal aliens with criminal records or known associations with terrorist organizations would be eligible for legal residency under S. 1645. Criteria that would exclude applicants for legal admission to the U.S., such as a conviction for an aggravated felony or ties to known terrorist organizations, would be waived under this bill. Moreover, other information that might make an alien excludable, such as evidence of tax or welfare fraud, could not be shared between the relevant government agencies.

Claimants to apply outside the United States. An alien would not even need to be currently in the U.S. to take advantage of the amnesty offer provided in this legislation. People who claim to have previously worked illegally in the U.S. agricultural industry could apply at the border and would have to be admitted under "preliminary" status while their claims were processed. Such applicants could immediately be granted a border-crossing card without a background check or verification of the data in the application.

Family members jump to the head of the immigration queue. The bill also promises no relatives of illegal aliens will be left behind either. Amnesty would apply to the spouse and minor children of the principle alien, even if they do not currently reside in the U.S. Like the principal applicant, family members may not be excluded for the usual provisions designed to protect the American public.

Eligible for taxpayer-funded legal assistance. Applicants for amnesty under this bill would be eligible for taxpayer-funded assistance to file their amnesty claims, and contest denials. This provision would create an economic boon for immigration attorneys.

Broadest possible definition of "agricultural" worker. Virtually anyone who had touched an agricultural product (including non-food agricultural products) between the time a seed was planted and the time the finished product reaches the market would be classified as an agricultural worker under these bills. Occupations such as lumberjacks, turpentine production, and meatpacking would all be considered agricultural-related and therefore eligible for benefits under this bill.

Minimal requirement that applicants continue to work in agriculture. Amnesty recipients under this legislation would only have to continue to work in any of these broadly defined agricultural jobs for a maximum period of 360 hours within seven years to receive a green card. Under these circumstances, workers would do exactly what their predecessors did in 1986 - leave the agriculture sector altogether. Based on the 1986 precedent, these workers would leave for better paying jobs in other sectors of the economy and, because the bill provides for a never-ending supply of additional "guest workers," there would be no incentive for employers to improve wages and conditions to retain workers.

Guestworkers = Cheap Labor

Because nobody does backbreaking labor for substandard pay unless they really have to, this legislation would allow for an unlimited number of "guest workers" to enter the country and pay their dues in the fields or the meatpacking plants in the hope that they too will one day become eligible for legal permanent residence.

Access to cheap illegal alien labor has kept millions of farm workers in America in poverty and impeded the sort of mechanization that has occurred in other countries. It is also morally reprehensible and a national disgrace. This legislation virtually would assure that these conditions would be perpetuated.

In addition to perpetuating deplorable wages and working conditions, these bills contain many specific provisions that are highly objectionable.

"Need" for guest workers determined solely by employers. S. 1645 would create a fundamental shift in how the need for guest workers is determined. Until now, guest worker programs required government certification that the need exists for such workers and that employers have truly sought American workers to fill those positions. This legislation would rely on the self-serving attestation of agricultural employers to determine the need for guest workers.

Perpetuation of shameful wage and working standards. The equivalent in the agricultural sector of a prevailing wage standard that ensures that current agricultural guest workers do not degrade wages, would be frozen at the current rate for three years by this bill. The current sage standard is approximately $8.42 an hour. Based on the actual number of hours the average agricultural worker is employed, this amounts to an annual salary of just $8,000 for such workers. The maximum earnings for a worker employed full time under the current AEWR is $14,474. The official 2002 poverty level for a family of three is $15,260 a year.

Employers absolved of most other labor costs. The pending legislation would remove the employers' responsibilities for workers' housing and transportation costs. The burden of providing housing for workers (who surely would not be able to provide their own at current wages) would fall to HUD and other state and local government agencies (i.e., the taxpayer). Nor would it be the responsibility of employers to provide transportation for workers who live as far as 60 miles from their place of employment. Employers would not even be required to provide workers with tools or meals.

Employers' liability limited, and immunity granted from many labor protections. This legislation would exempt employers from many federal, state and local labor laws, including health and safety requirements, and grant them immunity from violation of existing health and safety standards. The bill contains a "private right of action" that ostensibly would allow guest workers to sue employers or contractors. However, the burden of proof is set so high that it would be almost impossible for workers to successfully prosecute a claim.

Health care for guest workers left to the taxpayer. Employers would not be required to insure the health of their guest workers. The costs would be borne by state and local governments, i.e., the taxpayer.

Mass Illegal Immigration Magnet

Rather than a brake on runaway illegal immigration, passage of this legislation would accelerate this already severe problem. Countless people could be expected to enter the country to take advantage of an amnesty program because it would be highly vulnerable to fraudulent claims. Adoption of this legislation would increase the expectation that future illegal immigration to the United States will be followed by amnesty for law breakers, thereby creating still greater incentive for future illegal immigration.

In spite of establishing a new guest worker program, there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent employers from continuing to hire illegal aliens if they so chose. The bill contains no enhanced enforcement provision or penalties against employers who continue to hire illegal aliens. There is no reason to expect that employers would not replace newly amnestied illegal aliens, with new illegal aliens.

S. 1645 and H.R. 3142: Just the Beginning

Proponents of this legislation freely admit that it is the first stage in a wider effort to gain amnesty for all of the estimated 9-11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. Adoption of this legislation, coupled with the DREAM Act for an untold number of illegal alien students, would surely be followed by other proposals designed to extend the amnesty to all other classes of illegal immigrants.