Hacker News Reader

Comment by wing-_-nuts | Hacker News Reader

Here in america farmers hire illegals to harvest crops, claiming that no american would do the work. This has always struck me as a really terrible excuse. I'm sorry, you can't simply break the law because you'd have to pay an american $20 / hr to do the work. Sure, it means that your tomatoes are more expensive, but also, now there's a hell of an incentive to apply automation to the problem yes? If you don't like the law, maybe pressure your representatives to reform immigration instead of just hoping everyone turns a blind eye to your exploitation.

View on HN

Here in america farmers hire illegals to harvest crops, claiming that no american would do the work

This is a political talking point that has been repeated so often that people believe it is true.

During the recession of 2008, there were stores on local TV news in many places showing unemployed Americans waiting in long lines for the opportunity do do those jobs that the politicians kept saying no American wanted to do for those wages. Meatpacking plants, especially, had more than enough Americans to choose from who were willing to work for low wages.

Because these things happened in "flyover" states, they were only very rarely shown on television on the coasts, and so the meme stuck.

A similar oft-repeated lie is that American farmers are all a bunch of Republican hillbillies who hate brown immigrants.

Around 2010, I attended a conference in Seattle for farmers in the Pacific Northwest. The main topic of discussion was how to increase legal immigration from Mexico so that they could have more farmworkers to pick the cherries and apples and mint and whatnot. These people were talking about goals of making people from Mexico and Latin America U.S. citizens in staggering numbers.

The more you actually go places and do things and meet people and talk to them, the more you realize that the words coming out of the political organizations on the coasts are mostly for their own benefit, and do not reflect reality.

My somewhat educated guess is that these farmers in the PNW don't share the same politics as farmers in the rural south or midwest.

That and Republicans have grown way more hostile to immigration since 2010, so it's an interesting anecdote but not sure how well it translates across the US, where polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not.

"where polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not."

source?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-y...

so no, no source. cool

My somewhat educated guess is that these farmers in the PNW don't share the same politics as farmers in the rural south or midwest

When you say it's an "educated" guess, educated how? It only seems to reflect the usual bigotry that comes out of the coasts.

polling shows farmers are overwhelmingly Republican who tend also tend to hate immigration legal or not

If you're going to make a statement that sweeping, you really should back it up with credible sources.

"When you say it's an "educated" guess, educated how? It only seems to reflect the usual bigotry that comes out of the coasts."

I lived first 28 years of my life in the rural south and now live in the midwest.

My entire family and most of my friends growing up are the people you claim I'm bigoted against...

"If you're going to make a statement that sweeping, you really should back it up with credible sources."

The fact that farmers are generally far more conservative and republican than the median voter or average American isn't exactly some shocking new insight.

You seem to have never spent much time around these folks or have done much research on them if this comes as a surprise to you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-y...

Are these just bigoted facts "out of the coasts" too:?

I don't think your points really contradict your first statement. First, people tend to drop their standards on the type of work they're willing to do and pay they'll accept when they're desperate. In 2008 a lot of people needed a job. Any job was better than no job. I'm not surprised that jobs that would normally be unpopular had lines of people applying at that time.

Your second point about farmers trying to increase legal immigration in 2010 clearly indicates most Americans won't regularly do this work for the wages being offered. Why else would farmers be looking to hire immigrant workers just 2 years after locals were lining up to get these jobs?

While it would be nice if there was a way to get enough immigrants working legally to fill those jobs that doesn't seem to have happened. Short of another large economic downturn I don't see Americans working those jobs either. That leaves people who are working in the US illegally to fill the gap.

> A similar oft-repeated lie is that American farmers are all a bunch of Republican hillbillies who hate brown immigrants.

> Around 2010, I attended a conference in Seattle for farmers in the Pacific Northwest. The main topic of discussion was how to increase legal immigration from Mexico so that they could have more farmworkers to pick the cherries and apples and mint and whatnot. These people were talking about goals of making people from Mexico and Latin America U.S. citizens in staggering numbers.

Farmers are, for the most part, single issue voters: Whoever has the best plan to support agriculture and small businesses gets their vote.

>Because these things happened in "flyover" states, they were only very rarely shown on television on the coasts, and so the meme stuck.

How do you determine from TV that the people lining up for meatpacking jobs were not undocumented immigrants?

Like, it is generally accepted there aren't any in "flyover states" or something?

I never really thought of it until this moment, but you know how within 100 miles of any border, your constitutional rights are somewhat compromised so DHS can operate? That ought to mean a pretty substantial incentive for people who are undocumented to migrate inward. So I would bet they do.

A couple of years ago, a serial offender food producer was raided, multiple times. 600+ undocumented workers were found, and all spoke of management knowing their status.

The workers were detained, deported, and so on.

After several raids, not so much as a misdemeanor was levied against a single person, nor a fine to the company in general.

Kind of makes me think, what's the point when these laws aren't actually enforced?

The point is to punish and cause pain to the immigrants. Regardless of the original justification of a system, the point of a system is what it does or will do. That is what this system does and will do unless changed.

"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law." Getúlio Vargas had it all worked out.

About half of US hired farmworkers are illegal immigrants, says the U.S. Department of Agriculture.[1] It was only 12% in 1991, but passed 50% by 2000.

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor

> reform immigration

That's easier said than done. The problem is that in order to reform immigration you have to do one of two things:

1. Start treating people fairly, with the result being higher food prices, which will make some of your constituents very unhhappy

2. Codify the current class structure into law so that you can continue to exploit cheap labor legally. The optics on that are really bad.

Exploiting people off the books is the path of least resistance for everyone, including the workers (manifestly so, or they wouldn't risk life and limb to be here).

Of course it isn't that simple. If your farm's tomatoes are more expensive than your neighbors' tomatoes, then nobody will buy them. You'll quickly go bankrupt.

It is also difficult because of the two tiers of labor. A farmer will try increasing wages by $1/hour, and still struggle to find enough workers. Wages would probably have to be doubled before new workers—Americans—would start to enter the industry.

This is the reason tariffs exist. You levy a fee that makes the imported food cost as much as food picked using domestic labor.

Or, you know, you let unprofitable endeavors be substituted by profitable ones, and you just import food from different places where it is profitable. Just make sure not to wage war with them all. That's always an alternative to subsidies and tariffs, but it's not as politically useful.

This is how the US gave up its ability to manufacture so many goods.

It's also in general how we end up with monopolies. Well-funded companies operating at a loss until they're the only noteworthy players ain't exactly unheard of.

"gave up" sounds like an unnecessarily ominous take on "delegate". But what's your exact point? Do you believe this is an irremediable situation or that know-how has been lost to time in the age of information?

I'm assuming you're implying a conversation about China and their manufacturing capabilities. But worst case scenario short of nuclear war, assuming US-China burns bridges and somehow for some reason now US is fully unable to import Chinese manufactured goods; how does this eliminate the US and all other countries from investing in an area that has now become more profitable? You could argue that prices would increase, but then again you aren't owed cheap manufacturing, and subsidies and tariffs are paid by either the taxpayer or the consumer (which tends to have a knock-off effect on the rest of economy, anyway). There was never a free lunch.

If farmers paid enough to get Americans to do seasonal farm labor their produce would cost twice as much as central/south American produce and they would immediately go out of business as everyone buys cheap imported fruit.

A labor-protectionist strategy has to be paired with a goods-protectionist strategy (tariffs or bans on imports).

Sounds like they don’t have a business, and should shut down.

You can fix this with import duties. If the country you are importing from doesn't have good labor laws, you charge them 100% extra.

People get really pissed off when food gets more expensive. Politicians realize that and will therefore never pass legislation that would cause such drastic price increases on food.

If they enforced the laws already on the books, they'd have to pass new laws to fix things. I see that as a net positive. If you selectively enforce against illegal immigrants, well, that's very much a 'rules for thee, not for me' situation isn't it?

Now everyone is poorer.

This kind of reasoning can be used to justify slavery..

Except giving someone a job isn't slavery... it's actually the complete opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com