Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

Meanwhile, down on the border … | Columnists | griffindailynews.com – Griffin Daily News

For the last two months, the roiling immigration debate has centered around President Trumps executive orders, which have slowed some legal migration and suspended most employment-based visas until the end of 2020. During the period, President Trump scored a major victory over globalists when he forced Tennessee Valley Authority executives to turn back their outsourcing commitment that would cost high-skilled American workers their jobs.

However, down on the still-porous Southwest border, illegal immigration the contentious issue that propelled President Trump into the White House is worsening. Since April, and despite President Trumps efforts to curb illegal immigration in light of the coronavirus pandemic, unlawful entry arrests have soared 237 percent, according to Customs and Border Protection.

In March, pursuant to the urging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, border officials turned back migrants, including those who claimed asylum. For more than 90 percent of the migrants, the normal timeline for returning unlawful border crossers dropped from a period of several weeks to a mere hour and a half.

In his compelling documentary, They Come to America: the Politics of Immigration, filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch, in interviews with experts, gives an overview of the challenges that decades-long ineffective methods of slowing illegal entry present to the nation. Among them are drug smuggling, national security, environmental degradation and population growth.

But Lynch also focuses on illegal immigration as a labor variable that is especially harmful to low-skilled U.S. workers who have less than a college education. CBP acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan acknowledged that, during the spring-time, surge jobs are illegal immigrations biggest pull factor.

Single adult Mexican nationals, who are generally seeking economic opportunities, accounted for almost 80 percent of the encounters, Morgan said.

Based on the latest available federal statistics, Pew Research estimated that 8 million immigrants are in the labor force illegally, mostly employed in agriculture but also in sectors that would present hiring possibilities for Americas under-employed, like construction, hospitality, business services and manufacturing.

While theres been much fanfare, both positive and negative, about President Trumps big beautiful wall, Lynch makes clear that no structure can protect the nations waterways from illegal entrants. As an example, Lynch cites the CBPs Miami sector thats assigned to cover Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The Miami sector consists of approximately 187,000 square miles and has 1,203 miles of Floridas coastal borders along the Atlantic and Gulf shores. In his statement, Morgan advocated for President Trumps wall. But as Lynch pointed out, a wall is meaningless with such a vast expanse of unprotected shores and waterways that migrant smugglers can easily penetrate. At the time Lynchs documentary went into production, a mere 111 CBP agents, and only two with boats, were assigned to the Miami sector.

President Trumps wall-blustering is empty talk. Even if a wall were erected, the effect of deterring illegal immigration would be minor at best, and a flat zero for water arrivals. While talking about migrants in search of economic opportunities, Morgan missed a chance to promote E-Verify which, since the program confirms individuals lawful authorization to work, is a proven illegal immigration deterrent.

U.S. ineptitude at immigration enforcement is known to prospective migrants worldwide. Lynchs documentary featured a local CBS broadcaster who reported that the Miami sector alone had apprehended aliens from 64 nations.

Labor Day will mark the official kickoff for the 2020 presidential campaign. Voters will be subjected to a nearly unbearable torrent of speeches that promise more jobs for Americans. But just as reporters asked Democratic primary candidates if they supported open borders and Medicare for illegal immigrants, President Trump and challenger Joe Biden should face an equally probing question: Would you, if elected, demand that Congress pass mandatory E-Verify?

Joe Guzzardi writes for the Washington, D.C.-based Progressives for Immigration Reform. A newspaper columnist for 30 years, Joe writes about immigration and related social issues. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.

Excerpt from:
Meanwhile, down on the border ... | Columnists | griffindailynews.com - Griffin Daily News

Growing Number in Congress Demanding Answers on Covid-19 at the Border – Immigration Blog

Topic Page: Covid-19 and Immigration

The evidence is now clear and convincing that significant numbers of ill Covid-19 patients in Mexico are legally and illegally crossing the southern border for treatment in U.S. hospitals and contributing tospikes in hospitalizations and deathsin the border states.

But information remains stubbornly missing in action as to the phenomenon's extent, information that is urgently needed to adjustU.S. policy responses. The information also is needed to tell us why Covid-19 can be jumping the border like this when the Trump administration declared the border closed to "non-essential travel" and invoked the tough "Title 42" quick-expulsion policy for all illegally entering Mexicans.

Few in media or government seem eager to brave the charges of xenophobia and racism that inevitably follow when anyone suggests migrants may carry in diseases.

But not everyone is frightened or cowed, not in critical pandemic circumstances when hospital beds all along the border, on both sides, are dangerously overwhelmed and threatening lives.

In mid-July, three members of Congress marshaled by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas)penned a letter to Chad Wolf, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, requesting data that would indicate the extent of Mexico's contribution to U.S. hospitalizations, so that leaders can revise or create life-saving policy to counter the problem. Reps. Roy, Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), and Ted Budd (R-N.C.) also asked how often the Border Patrol transports apprehended illegal immigrants to hospitals. Rep. Roy's office told me DHS had missed both July 17 and July 24 deadlines but seemed to still be earnestly working on the request.

On Monday, August 10, Rep. Roy's quest had drawn a total of 22 congressional signatories on a new letter to Wolf asking for still more information.

To understand their latest request, it helps to know that in March, the Trump administration ordered emergency measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 to and from Mexico. It ordered an exemption-riddled "border closure" on March 20 that seems only to actually apply to travelers interested in recreation on either side. Anyone else with a visa, a border-crossing card who claims they are essential, or those with legal residency in the United States can still cross through the ports of entry for medical treatment, for instance. Hundreds of thousands have taken advantage.

Secondly, the Title 42 expulsion policy where Border Patrol agents immediately turn back almost all illegal Mexican immigrants seems to have a couple of built-in exemptions through which illegally crossing Covid-19 patients are slipping into U.S. borderland hospitals. One loophole is that Border Patrol agents have the discretion to transport sick or injured illegal immigrants to local hospitals, rather than immediately returning them to Mexico. Another Title 42 exemption seems to prevent Border Patrol from returning to Mexico Central Americans or extra-continental migrants from around the world who get apprehended. Those go to ICE detention facilities,many of them subsequently discovered to be sick with Covid-19.

Apparently through these exemptions, a kaleidoscope of sick people have been fleeing overrun Mexican hospital systems and into American ones since May, their ranks escalating in June and July in California, Arizona, and then Texas. As I've explained in multiple posts,the majority of the border-crossers seem to be Mexicans who are legal permanent residents in the United States, those withdual citizenship, holders of border-crossing cards and of different sorts of visas, and American expatriate retirees.

But last week, Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan acknowledged at a press conference that Border Patrol agents were indeed transporting apprehended illegal aliens to hospitals, too, if they exhibited Covid-19 symptoms or claimed they had Covid-19. His comments confirmed June 18 Center for Immigration Studies reporting from anonymous Border Patrol agents in the field that they were transporting illegal immigrants to hospitals and becoming sick themselves while doing it.

With all of this in mind, the new information request from the 22 members of Congress asks how CBP has defined "essential travel" and under what circumstances aliens with border-crossing cards are ever prevented from entering at the border and also when they are granted passage. The members asked what specific steps CBP is taking to prevent Covid-19-positive aliens from entering. The letter signatories also asked how many aliens with border-crossing cards have been admitted into U.S. health care facilities for Covid-19 treatment.

They provide their reasons for asking:

"Our policies are only as good as their enforcement, and we cannot afford to undermine their effectiveness especially with lives, resources, and the well-being of our nation on the line," the letter reads, in part. "We must implement and subsequently enforce common-sense measures to limit the spread of this highly contagious virus and are hopeful that your department will focus aggressively on our border states and localities."

Their request and concerns may not fall on deaf ears at the White House.

On Tuesday, August 11, news broke that President Trump was weighing a likelycontroversial set of new regulations that would sew up key loopholes in his initial border closure. Among the ideas would be to block American expatriates and Mexican legal permanent residents. It's unclear yet when or if these fixes will move forward. But whatever is implemented should come paired with a robust medical airlift of supplies and people who can repair and expand Mexico's collapsed hospitals all along its side of the border. Leaving blocked American citizens without care should not be an option.

To be continued.

Read more from the original source:
Growing Number in Congress Demanding Answers on Covid-19 at the Border - Immigration Blog

Labour’s refusal to take a stance on illegal immigration will cost it dear – Telegraph.co.uk

Just because Abraham Lincoln is claimed to have judged that you cant fool all the people all the time doesnt mean modern politicians have been dissuaded from trying their best anyway.

Indeed, the art of modern politics is to arm your activists with enough selective quotes from your partys spokespeople that you can deploy them in an attempt to win over people who often have diametrically opposing views from one another. Yes, they may, a few months or years down the line, be disappointed and disillusioned that the party or policy they voted for didnt quite do what it said on the tin, but such disillusion will only set in after the ballot boxes have been emptied and the polling stations close, so no harm done.

As a fine example, I present the shadow home secretary, Nick Thomas-Symmonds. At the weekend it will be entirely possible for Labour activists to head out for their campaigning activities (or they would if it werent for the pandemic) and to reassure voters who are angry about the arrival of illegal migrants on the Kent shore that the party specifically the Shadow Home Secretary shares their anger. To prove it, theres even a letter from him to the Home Secretary saying that its wrong that this is happening.

Next door, a colleague might be speaking to another voter who is disgusted by the Governments refusal to allow such migrants to settle permanently in Britain. Again, the words of Mr Thomas-Symmonds citing poverty wars and persecution can be deployed. Theres even a letter from him to the Home Secretary saying that To date your efforts have been devoid of compassion.

Someone of a more cynical bent than I might conclude that the Shadow Home Secretarys carefully-worded statements on the issue (not that there have been many of them recently) are aimed at resolving the potentially vote-losing contradiction between his own partys instinctive support for mass migration and the general publics more sceptical approach. But it can hardly be denied that Thomas-Symmonds intervention is thoughtful and considered.

Nuance is certainly in short supply when it comes to debate on immigration. But Labour will find that refusing to take a stand, one way or the other, on the issue of illegal immigration will prove a major weakness by the time the next election campaign kicks off. Thomas-Symmonds is right (as is Diane Abbott on LabourList) to place most of the blame at the feet of the people smugglers making a fortune by exploiting vulnerable (and gullible) people. That is a safe and uncontroversial opinion that carries no risk.

Many on the liberal Left are disparaging of public concerns about the numbers arriving on our southern shores, given the relatively low (though exponentially increasing) numbers involved. Those same commentators also blame the people smugglers. And yet every dinghy that completes the journey safely, every individual not immediately returned from whence they came (and by that I mean France) is the best possible advertisement for the dubious service they provide.

If you really want to stymie a market for any particular product, ensure that it is worthless, that it provides zero return on your money. How do you convince the smugglers potential customers that their life savings will be utterly wasted on a cross-Channel adventure as long as many of those who made it to the shore have yet to be returned?

Thomas-Symmonds reluctance to take a harder line, one way or the other, is understandable given the partys record on immigration. In the first term of Tony Blairs government, there was widespread unhappiness among activists at its robust efforts to clamp down on illegal arrivals, imposing eye-watering fines on lorry drivers who had, in most cases, accepted eye-watering bribes to allow their unofficial passengers to hop aboard before travelling to Blighty.

And who can forget the controversy which, for reasons unknown, was caused by the mug featuring the meaningless slogan Controls on immigration, as if a Miliband Labour government would have been the first government ever to impose controls on who gets to arrive and live in this country.

Unlike coronavirus, illegal immigration is a subject about which the public is more likely to judge political parties. It is hardly extreme to believe that deliberately breaking UK law by arriving on our shores, having paid some of the vilest people on the planet thousands of pounds to evade the British authorities, is an unacceptable way to behave. Similarly, there is a rational, progressiveview that borders belong to a previous era and that no one should be forced to take their lives into their own hands if they want to live here.

Those views, however, are entirely contradictory and no politician seeking one of the highest offices in the land can get away for long with riding both horses. Sooner or later Labour will need to tell the British people where it stands. A deafening silence, or at best an equivocal attempt to please both sides, cannot be sustained.

Originally posted here:
Labour's refusal to take a stance on illegal immigration will cost it dear - Telegraph.co.uk

Spike in fees hurts legal immigration – Boston Herald

Illegal immigration is a problem in America, an expensive one. According to The Hill, though illegal immigrants pay some $19 billion in taxes, that is dwarfed by the roughly $116 billion annual drain on the economy. And about two-thirds of that bill is absorbed by local and state taxpayers.

But the way to discourage illegal immigration is to encourage legal immigration, with the goal of eventual naturalization and citizenship.

Unfortunately, the government has taken a step backward toward achieving that goal.

After a nine-month review, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency updated and finalized its fee structure this week.

According to CNN, It increased the cost of online naturalization applications from $640 to $1,160. The naturalization fee will represent the full cost to process the application, the agency says, plus a proportional share of overhead costs, a change from previous policy.

The new fees take effect Oct. 2.

Thats a pricey jump, especially for a demographic that, being new to this country, is likely to be low income. Coming up with an extra $520 is a huge burden for those just trying to get by, especially in the middle of a coronavirus pandemic.

The spike in fees could prove so onerous that people abandon the naturalization route, and join the ranks of the undocumented.

Like the rest of the country, USCIS is dealing with fiscal fallout from the coronavirus. The agency is facing a significant budget shortfall and looming furloughs. Unlike most federal agencies, USCIS receives most of its funding from fee collection.

USCIS wasnt going gangbusters before COVID-19 hit, either, losing about $4.1 million per business day before the pandemic, a spokesperson told CNN.

These overdue adjustments in fees are necessary to efficiently and fairly administer our nations lawful immigration system, secure the homeland and protect Americans, Joseph Edlow, USCIS deputy director for policy, said in a statement.

Yes, revenues and funding across the country have fallen so far thanks to the pandemic that theyre inches from the Earths core at this point but raising naturalization fees will do more than hit wallets. It will derail immigrants on the path to citizenship.

If youre losing millions a day before a pandemic hits, a funding overhaul is long overdue. But turning to those who can least afford to pay these new, increased fees will do nothing to ameliorate Americas dilemma with the undocumented.

See the original post:
Spike in fees hurts legal immigration - Boston Herald

Problems and Insights within NBC’s Report on H-2A Abuses – Cato Institute

The H-2A visa program exists to provide U.S. farmers with legal foreign workers when they cannot find U.S. workers as an alternative to illegal immigration and illegal employment. The government requires H-2A employers provide among other benefitshigh wages, free housing, free transportation, and three meals or a kitchen. Despite these requirements, a lengthy NBC News report released this week details a story of horrific abuse of a group of H-2A workers and concludes that as the H-2A program has expanded, it has left more guest workers vulnerable to abuse.

Unfortunately, while highlighting important issues and one person's dramatic criminal behavior, the report has several flaws and inaccuracies that incorrectly create the impression of widespread, systematic abuse of H-2A workers. In general, nearly all H-2A workers benefit greatly from working in the United States.

This post will criticize the use of certain data in this reporting, but I want to be clear at the outset that the narrative component of the story has journalistic merit that does illustrate real issues that can arise with the H-2A program. However, the report grounds its narrative in a couple data points delivered at the top of the piece (along with the graphic) that are problematic:

Last year, the Labor Department closed 431 cases with confirmed H-2A violations a 150 percent increase since 2014; the agency found about 12,000 violations under the program, with nearly 5,000 H-2A workers cheated out of their wages, according to federal data.

There are several issues with this presentation of data:

No recent upward trend in H-2A violations: Despite the jump in violations last year, a fuller presentation of the data over both Obama and Trumps terms shows, first, that a similar number of absolute violations were found in 2012 and 2013 (the year before NBC's graph cuts off) and, second, that the number of violations per 1,000 H-2A jobs is still 29 percent lower than the average year since 2000. The program has grown much faster than the number of violations. Figure 1 shows both the absolute numbers and the number of violations per 1,000 H-2A jobs. Of course, the data could be missing violations that DOL never caught, but this would also have been true in 2012 and 2013, and the trends cut against the journalists narrative and should have been acknowledged.

Incorrect claim about backpay. The claim that nearly 5,000 H-2A workers cheated out of their wages is simply incorrect. The Department of Labor (DOL) does report that nearly 5,000 workers received back wages from H-2A investigations, but these workers include U.S. workers. Government regulations require that H-2A farmers pay all their workersboth H-2A workers and U.S. workers in corresponding employmentthe Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for the state (H-2As inflated minimum wage) on top of the free housing, free transportation, etc. If the DOL audits an employer and finds that only H-2A workers received the AEWR while U.S. workers received the market wage, it will cite the employer and require them to pay backpay to U.S. workers, even if the U.S. workers never asked or were promised the AEWR.

Matthews Sweet Potato Farm, for example, last year paid $56,193 in back wages to 113 employees because, as DOL states, the employer gave H-2A workers preferential treatment when they paid American workers less than ... U.S. workers. This fact is very important for the reader to know because it cuts against the theory that its always H-2A foreign workers receiving lower pay than U.S. workers. The H-2A program is often so generousnot just in theory but in practiceabout pay for guest workers that it often penalizes employers for treating them better than Americans.

No recent upward trend in workers receiving backpay. NBC cuts off the available data, so the reader cannot see that in 2013, the number of (again, total) workers receiving backpay was similar to what it was last year. Moreover, since the program has expanded so dramatically in recent years, it simply isnt reasonable to show the absolute number of workers receiving backpay without context. Figure 2 shows these trends as well. The number of workers receiving backpay per 1,000 H-2A jobs was 57 percent lower than its peak in 2013 and 6 percent below the average for all years. Nothing unprecedented is happening with violations or backpay in the H-2A program under President Trump.

No context about the significance of the infractions: NBC focuses on a horrific case of fraud and abuse but then lumps that case with all other infractions as if they are similar. They are not. The maximum available fine for a single H-2A violation in 2019 was $115,624. The actual average fine amount per violation was just $237. Moreover, in about 29 percent of cases in 2019, DOL considered all of the infractions found so minor that it wasnt worth a fine at all. Figure 3 actually shows a decline in the number of more serious infractions valued at more than $10,000 declined from 26 percent of cases to 7 percent from 2011 to 2019. H-2A opponents sometimes use these facts to imply that DOL is so cozy with employers that it is unwilling to do anything about H-2A violations. This is absurd and cuts against decades of hostility between the DOL and employers.

No context about the frequency of H-2A employer violators. The vast majority of H-2A employers aren't violators. Figure 4 shows the number of H-2A employers who were fined in recent years compared to the number of total H-2A employers. With more than 6,000 employers, some people will violate the law, but it is by no means significant.

No context about the frequency of H-2A trafficking: As I note in my report, the Department of Homeland Security granted T visa status (for human trafficking victims like those documented in the NBC report) to 39 H-2A workers from 2009 to 2013, which represents 0.01 percent of H-2A visas issued. Polaris, a group dedicated to combating human trafficking, received 327 complaints to its human trafficking hotline from H-2A visa holders from 2015 to 2017about 0.08 percent of visas issued. These are tragic cases, but as David Medina of Polaris told the Guardian, most H-2A workers biggest fear is to lose that visa.

Little context about H-2As value for foreign workers: Nearly all H-2A workers try to return to the United States repeatedly because, whatever its flaws, it provides a better standard of living than their home countries. The annualized wage for H-2A workers was almost $25,000 in 2019. Mexicos minimum wage for farmworkers was just $4.64 per day, less than $1,200 per year. Even the highest paid agricultural workers in Mexico only earn $15 per day. In Mexico, they pay very little, one Tennessee H-2A worker said. You work all day and you earn what you earn here in an hour. Its a big difference.

But its not just the wages. H-2A employment is legal employment with legal status. This is huge benefit to workers who may otherwise cross illegally in dangerous conditions. As one former-illegal, but now H-2A worker explained, I dont have to risk my life anymore to support my family. And when I am here, I do not have to live in hiding. This partly explains, as seen in Figure 5, why the rise in H-2A and H-2B visas for Mexicans has corresponded with a major decrease in illegal immigration from Mexico. H-2A visas are usually better than the alternatives for nearly all H-2A workers, whether staying at home or crossing illegally.

Inaccurate report of a significant decline in investigative resources: NBC states that staff at the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the Department of Labor's agency responsible for H-2A enforcement, has fallen by 19 percent since 2016, according to federal records. NBC doesnt link to the federal records it references, but it appears that this statement came from comparing the proposed number of full-time equivalent workers for FY 2016 to the total number of actual or proposed workers in FY 2020. Whatever the case, the 19 percent reduction in WHD staff did not occur. In FY 2020, the agency had 1,382 full-time equivalent employees (excluding the H-1B fraud staff who are separately funded by employer fees). This compares to 1,359 in FY 2016. Including the H-1B staff doesn't make the claim correct or substantially change the trends. Figure 6 shows the full trend for WHD staff.

Little context about H-2As complexity: NBC notes that farmers say that the program is complex, but this fact is only affirmed in passing and only as an explanation for why farmers are using labor contractors (which, in the highlighted case, abused the workers in NBCs story), not as an explanation for the violations themselves. The Government Accountability Office has found that the complexity of the H-2A program poses a challenge for some employers because it involves multiple agencies and numerous detailed program rules that sometimes conflict with other laws. In 2014, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ombudsman characterized it simply as highly regulated. My own report details a noncomprehensive list of 209 H-2A rules that apply to farmers and workers. This flow chart from my report gives a small glimpse into the regulatory hurdles for H-2A employers.

Its inevitable as new employers join a very complicated program that some violations will occur. For example, violations of the corresponding employment rulementioned aboveare common because the belief naturally arises that only Americans recruited by the employer as part of the H-2A process are subject to it. This isnt so. Moreover, its exceptionally difficult outside of that process to determine who a corresponding worker is, if workers perform different tasks at different times of the year.

Despite the shortcomings of its presentation of the data and facts about the program, the NBC narrative does contain some important insights about reforming the H-2A program. An H-2A labor contractoran individual named Manuel Sanchezwith a contract with Premium Pineneedles in Georgia recruited Mexicans to bale pine straw for garden mulch. He promised them all the normal H-2A benefits but illegally charged them a $1,600 to join, nearly the first months expected pay. Once they reached Georgia, Sanchez dumped them without gloves or equipment in a forest to pick up pine needles with their bare hands and forced them to live in abandoned and dilapidated housing without enough food.

Workers want a legal alternative to illegal immigration: NBC states:

Six years earlier, Reyes had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on foot, without papers. He was caught in Texas, then deported after two weeks in detention. This time would be different, Reyes told himself: "I want to do things the right way legally."

This accords with the experience of many other guest workers who chose the H-2A or H-2B guest worker programs because they were better alternatives to illegal residence. Without the H-2A program, many more workers would continue to attempt to cross the border illegally, placing them in a worse position with their employers and the law. This insight cuts strongly against curtailing the H-2A program.

Make the program less complex: NBC reports:

The program's growth has spawned a cottage industry of visa agents and growers associations to help farmers navigate the complex application process. But increasingly, farmers are turning to farm labor contractors like [the abusive] Sanchez to supply workers. . . . farmers are outsourcing the time-consuming job of hiring, transporting, housing and managing H-2A workers. Labor contractors can also shield farmers from liability, curtailing their legal responsibility for the workers picking their crops should something go wrong.

These statements imply that farmers would be much more likely to hire workers directly and manage the workers themselves if the program was less complex. This is sensible. Simplifying the H-2A program would benefit both workers and employers. This insight undercuts the argument for adding even more regulations to the program.

Inform workers of their rights: NBC explains that it took a local pastor to explain to them their rights:

The following night, the workers heard a knock on their door. The men scattered. Some hid inside the house, Luna recalled, fearing that immigration agents had come to deport them, as Sanchez kept threatening would happen, even though they'd done nothing wrong. [The pastor] Marcela De Leon was overwhelmed. "This is abuse," she said, telling the men to speak to a lawyer. "You have to report it."

Every H-2A worker first has a visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate. Consular officers at the end of those interviews should be informing workers of their rights. Every interview should conclude with the promised job conditions and where to go if those conditions are not met. No H-2A worker should believe that reporting human trafficking and fraud should result in deportation. They should understand the availability of T visas for trafficking victims, which the workers ultimately obtained.

Allow workers to leave their jobs without fear of losing status: NBC reports that for the workers:

their greatest fear more than being mistreated was never being able to come work in America again. What would all that suffering have been for? "All that time in vain," as one of the men later put it.

For U.S. workers, leaving a job is never easy, but theres no risk that you will never be able to work in America again. Foreign workers need the same assurance. If workers can leave their jobs to find new ones, they can assert their rights more vigorously and blunt the fear of losing financially. Unfortunately, the H-2A program makes this exceptionally difficult. H-2A status automatically expires 30 days after the end of the first job. The regulation is not at all clear that this 30-day period applies to workers who abscond from their first job, but it should be universal. Moreover, 30 days is not enough assurance for workers. The H-2A program should guarantee a minimum of a years status with renewals possible with proof that the worker is continuing to find jobs.

As importantly, all the regulatory red tape to hire a foreign workerwhich takes about 90 days to completemakes it almost impossible to quickly connect to a new employer that isnt already interested in H-2A workers. The government should allow farmers to hire H-2A workers already in the United States on the same terms as their U.S. workers. The statutory requirements only apply to employers seeking to import a foreign worker, not to those already present in the country. Moreover, under the statute, employers should be required to hire available H-2A workers first because the statute requires them to seek any available worker (without specifying U.S. worker) in the United States.

More visas will reduce abuse: NBC reports:

Sanchez, whom he met through a friend, told [the worker] that it would cost $1,600 for the visa, transportation and a "special" passport that turned out not to exist.

It is almost impossible to stop these deals if workers fail to report themanother reason that workers should receive detailed instructions about their rights at the visa interview. In a free market, workers would enter the country and find jobs in the same manner as U.S. workers cross states, which would deny unscrupulous recruiters their power. Even without that ideal, it remains true that the more visas are available, the greater the bargaining power of the workers become. If visas are easy to come by, then workers will be less willing to pay or not be willing to pay as much.

Conclusion

I have asked NBC to correct its report with respect to the claim that 5,000 H-2A workers were cheated out of their wages in 2019, since it is incorrect, but so far no correction has come. It would have been nice if they had quoted at least one worker supportive of the program (there are hundreds of thousands) or quoted a proponent of the program that wasnt an employer (which may have caught some of the issues above). Another bit of missing context is the fact that entirely aside from the H-2A program, some employers in every industry sometimes lie and defraud U.S. workers too. They fail to pay them what they are owed. The only way to reach zero abuse is to stop all hiring, which is obviously not a realistic proposal. Instead, we need to empower workers to understand and stand up for their rights.

More here:
Problems and Insights within NBC's Report on H-2A Abuses - Cato Institute