Revised post.
Martin, Philip. "AgJOBS: New Solution or New Problem?." International Migration Review 37.4 (2003): 1282-1291. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 6 Feb. 2011
The author of this article is trying to weigh the differences of whether or not a new program called AgJOBS will provide solutions or cause new problems in relation to immigration. Philip Martin states, "Depending on how the program is implemented, how workers and employers respond and whether unauthorized entry and employment continue(1283)." In this quote, I think he is addressing some of the issues that have come up since the government has tried to implement this program. There have been other similar programs instituted in the past, and the question is; will the problems that arose from the previous programs be addressed and dealt with in this new program.
AgJOBS was born in 2000. Its aim is to create a legal farm workforce, which its advocates assume will also ensure a higher-wage workforce. The program would allow migrant farm workers to gain temporary resident status if they meet certain requirements. Martin makes comparisons between AgJOBS and another program called H-2A, they both seem to have the same end result in mind, better pay and living conditions for migrant farm workers and to create a stable farm workforce. One of the problems seems to be that both programs who offer a chance at U.S. residency creates an influx of immigration thus flooding the farm work force and lowering wages. Seemingly only to the dismay of the workers themselves, agricultural business would continue to prosper while not paying higher wages. If they can always find someone willing to do the work for less.
The owners of agricultural business have had a heavy hand in dictating the programs brought to the table. They have amazing amounts of clout when it comes to legislation. An example is from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It included employer sanctions to discourage unauthorized entry and employment. "U.S. Western crop farmers opposed this compromise, arguing that it did not acknowledge their unique dependence on unauthorized workers, and they would be unable to obtain workers in the flexible manner necessary for their "perishable agriculture"(1283)."
I wonder, how much of their disagreement has less to do with the ease in which they can find workers under these programs, but more to do with the legislation that requires farmers to pay a fair wage and provide housing and the costs that farmers incur because of the rules? But then I have more questions. How do those costs get carried over to the consumer? Do we as consumers feel that we are willing to pay a few cents more for food if it means another human being is getting paid a fair wage?
I do not feel this is an easy subject to draw a solid line through. There is government regulation on one side, and farmers making a living on the other, with migrant workers caught in the middle. I believe that farmers are making their decisions based on the bottom line, which unfortunately can equate to human beings not being afforded basic life needs.
There is also the side that farmers come from, they too have rules and regulations that they have to follow, are prone to much loss due to weather, bugs, any number of things that can affect crops. Sometimes you hear of farmers disposing of entire crops that for one reason or another cannot be sold on the market, and in turn they lose thousands of dollars. They had to pay someone to harvest the crops that they will not see a return on. So I can see the rock and a hard place that sometimes farmers are in. Another place where I think there should be radical change, why would we have entire crops of food thrown out because the market is too full? What about all those who go hungry everyday in our own country let alone in other countries. It is not democratic by any stretch of the imagination. There are many ways you can turn these issues, that may seem separate but I believe are interconnected. Agriculture is an industry that exists under feast or famine, but in either instance its most valuable employees seem to more often than not live in a state of famine.