Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON International Fresh Produce Association BB #:378962 members spearheaded a press conference today along with other members of the Alliance for a New Immigration Consensus (ANIC) calling for urgent Senate action on immigration reform. Lori Taylor of The Produce Moms and Tara Smith Vighetti of Smith Farms highlighted the need for immigration reform that is vital to the fresh produce industry and for consumers facing high food prices.

Lori Taylor of The Produce Moms highlighted the impact that the failure to pass immigration reform is having on already inflated food prices. Swift action in immigration reform will empower Americas farmers and ranchers to improve labor efficiencies, said Taylor. Our agriculture supply chain is tasked with feeding America and feeding the world a strong supply chain and affordable food prices starts at the farm level. Through immigration reform we can provide relief to deserving families across America that are struggling to buy groceries as we all fight unprecedented inflation in food.

Tara Smith, a farmer and partner in Smith farms who has operations in Maine and Florida highlighted the impact on farming operations like hers. Currently the H-2A process does not allow farmers to secure workers in time or in the right numbers to align labor with the beginning and ending of production windows with real certainty, said Smith. The process to execute H-2A applications is arduous administratively and legally, which makes the program difficult if not impossible to access for small farming companies. As a result of each of these shortfalls we see higher prices due to labor shortages and limited supply because farm families give up trying to compete with insecure labor supply. Movement on the issue of reform is needed now.

Congress has the ability to act today to prevent a shortage of farm workers and the resulting shortage of fresh produce in grocery stores already suffering from challenges in the food supply chain. With consumers facing higher prices due to other inflation-related pressures, passage of immigration reform can help fight back inflation. According to a study by Texas A&M International University there is a direct correlation between our current immigration laws and food prices. The reforms included in the House passed Farm Workforce Modernization Act have the ability to stem the impacts of rising inflation.

IFPA strongly supports the Farm Workforce Modernization Act and will continue to advocate for the Senate to take up action on immigration reform.

Without immigration reform, we know that American consumers will continue to experience higher prices and fewer options at the grocery store, threatening food security and availability. Any threat to the availability of fresh produce undermines the health benefits of fruits and vegetables in combating the chronic diseases that cost our economy billions, said IFPA CEO, Cathy Burns, at a Washington press conference earlier this month.

About the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA)

The International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) is the largest and most diverse international association serving the entire fresh produce and floral supply chain and the only to seamlessly integrate world-facing advocacy and industry-facing support. We exist to bring the industry together to create a vibrant future for all. We grow our members prosperity by conducting advocacy; connecting people and ideas; and offering guidance that allows us all to take action with purpose and confidence. While IFPA is built on the legacy of United Fresh and Produce Marketing Association, it is not just a combination. It is transformational. Recognizing the industry required an even more powerful and unified voice, the leaders of the former United Fresh and Produce Marketing Association chose not to merge, but rather to create an entirely new organization to supersede their organizations, effective January 1, 2022.

Read the rest here:
IFPA members urge senate action on immigration reform Produce Blue Book - Produce Blue Book

Last week the House passed a wide-ranging defense authorization bill that included provisions to assist Afghan refugees and documented Dreamers, in what may be the last opportunity for Congress to enact any immigration reforms this year.

Despite many bills being negotiated and introduced in both chambers during the 117th Congress, which lasts from January 2021 until January 2023, lawmakers have so far failed to come together on any immigration provisions, even as many fear that time is running out before midterm elections potentially change the makeup of Congress.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act is the sole standalone immigration bill currently under active consideration, but its fate in the Senate despite being passed by the House of Representatives twice is uncertain. The House-passed China competition bill had also contained immigration provisions, but these were stripped out by the Senate as the bill was reduced to merely a bill to fund development of the U.S. semiconductor chips industry.

Thus, the most likely candidate for immigration provisions to become law during this Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was passed by the House on July 14 with three immigration-related amendments. The Senate is negotiating its own version of the NDAA.

The first immigration-related amendment to the NDAA was a bipartisan provision to protect documented Dreamers, the dependent children of green card applicants and employment visa holders who face deportation when they age out of eligibility for the dependent visa status. The amendment was offered by Rep. Deborah K. Ross, D-N.C., and co-sponsored by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa.

Afghan refugees will also see some relief if the House version of the NDAA becomes law. Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., offered two amendments to assist Afghan citizens who assisted the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and are now in danger.

The first amendment would direct the Department of State to dramatically increase processing capacity for Afghan special immigrant visa (SIV) applications and refugee referrals. The SIV system, put in place originally to help Afghan interpreters and others who directly assisted the U.S. military, has been plagued for years by bureaucratic red tape and years-long backlogs.

The second amendment included by Rep. Slotkin would make it easier for Afghan students to receive visas without proving an intent to return to Afghanistan. To be approved, student visa applicants must prove that they do not have immigrant intent, which means they dont intend to stay in the U.S. permanently, but plan to return to their home country when they complete their studies.

However, a different proposal to exempt immigrants with advanced science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees in national security-related fields from the numerical green card limits, which have contributed substantially to the massive green card backlog at DOS, was shelved. At the close of FY2021, there were more than 9 million green card applicants stuck in the backlogabout 7.5 million on the family-based side and 1.6 million on the employment-based side. The amendment was cut by the House Rules Committee for containing fees that ran afoul of legislative tax rules.

The House voted by roughly a 3-1 majority to approve the NDAA, which funds and directs policy for the military and other aspects of the U.S. defense. The bill has been passed each year since 1961, and is considered a must-pass piece of legislation. As Caroline Simon noted at RollCall, the inclusion of immigration provisions [in the bill] bodes well for their future at a time when immigration bills rarely move as stand-alone measures.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act (FWMA) has been passed by the House twice, and aims to modernize the H-2A temporary agricultural visa program. The current food production workforce recruitment system in the U.S. is believed by many to have led to higher food prices, particularly for dairy, meat, and vegetables.

FWMA would allow more farmers to hire temporary H-2A workers year-round, rather than only for short-term, seasonal work. Currently, farms like dairy and pork producers cannot source workers from the H-2A visa program, which has intensified labor shortages in these food industries during a time of already record prices.

The bill would also provide a pathway to legalization for some farm workers a path that does not currently exist for H-2A visa holders.

Despite the fact that the House came together with bipartisan support to pass this bill twice already, FWMA is in peril in the Senate, where negotiators are arguing over a provision that would expand federal law to allow H-2A workers to sue their employers if U.S. labor laws are broken.

The largest agriculture lobbyist in Washington, D.C., the American Farm Bureau Federation, is known for its usually conservative positions and is opposed to the expansion of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protections Act (MSPA) contained in the Farm Workforce bill.

Though Senators have some agreements nailed down, including an agreement to freeze H-2A wages at current levels for 2023, and a deal that would allow employers to hire more H-2A workers year-round than the House originally proposed, the overall fate of the bill remains uncertain.

Because the American Farm Bureau has refused to support expansion of MSPA for H-2A workers, some lawmakers are hesitant to commit to the bill. Some growers feel that the AFBF has sided with growers of only one region of the country, and some lawmakers worry that will come at the expense of a workable solution to sharply increasing food prices in the United States.

As Rep. Doug LaMalf R-Calif., said at a press conference hosted by the American Business Immigration Coalition last week, Do people want to eat in this country or not?

The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) is the bill formerly referred to informally as the China competition bill, a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at countering Chinas economic reach.

The House version of a China competition bill had included some immigration policies, but key Republican senators refused their inclusion. Proposals to ease the path to a green card for immigrants with advanced STEM degrees were slashed from the Senate bill.

The bill has been largely gutted in the Senate, where it has been whittled down merely to CHIPS funding (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors). In its current form, the slimmed-down CHIPS bill will provide a $52 billion investment in semiconductor manufacturing subsidies, as well as tax credits and funding for scientific research.

The Senate first passed its version of USICA in June 2021, but the House did not take it up or otherwise take any action on the bill until this year. Some Senators reportedly believe this delay is responsible for creating the dire shortage situation in which the U.S. now finds itself.

The Senate passed a procedural move to prepare for potential votes on USICA in both the House and the Senate by the end of July. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are scheduled to recess in August.

With midterm elections looming in November, many are predicting that control of the House could switch from the Democratic to the Republican party. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who would become Speaker of the House if Republicans take the majority, has vowed that he will bring no immigration-related bills to the floor.

McCarthy has also indicated plans to attempt to impeach the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, for supposed dereliction of duty. Republican lawmakers hold Mayorkas singularly accountable for the high level of border crossings in recent years, despite the fact that the implementation of Title 42 at the southern border by the previous administration has dramatically increased border crossings itself.

Other proposed plans by the hopeful-majority include legislation to restart Remain in Mexico, further increasing security at the heavily-militarized border, ramping up arrests and detentions of all immigrants living in the U.S., regardless of whether they are a threat to national security or public safety, and further restricting the already-hobbled asylum system.

These threats by members of Republican party leadership add to the sense of urgency felt on Capitol Hill, as Democrats rush to pass what they can before time runs out in November. Given the breakdown of President Joe Bidens Build Back Better legislation earlier this year, followed by the repeated stalling of bills and removal of immigration reform amendments, immigration advocates in Congress will need to move quickly to save whats left of Bidens immigration agenda, as well.

Continue reading here:
Defense Bill Could Be Last Chance for Immigration Laws This Year - Boundless

TORTOLA Premier Natalio Wheatley said the British Virgin Islands must begin a dialogue in earnest on what is in the best interest of the Virgin Islands, beginning with the granting of residency status for the purpose of belongership.

Wheatleys comments came during a radio address Monday night, where he noted that the topic of immigration reform is one of the most sensitive issues that the territory must address.

Like most other countries, he said, the BVI government has an immigration policy in place to select persons living and working in the territory and participating in community life that residency can be granted to.

However, residency for belongership is a privilege, not a right, Wheatley said. It is important to make this clear. And because residency for this purpose is a privilege and not a right, the government has developed arrangements by which to determine who has earned that privilege.

The premier said that residency for belongership is not automatically granted based on the duration of time one is in the territory, and the number of years spent on the island cannot be the sole determining factor in granting belongership.

Patriotism, a sound knowledge and history of the Virgin Islands and your social and civic contributions to the society are all very important things, among other factors, he noted. Residency and belongership are privileges that must be earned.

Wheatley said that over the years, the BVI government has instituted various arrangements to determine who has earned the privilege of residency for belongership. He said that more than 20 years ago, the existing eligibility criteria contained in the Immigration and Passport Act was put in place in the House of Assembly, which at the time was referred to as the Legislative Council. This law, he said, permits persons to apply for residency for belongership as early as 10 years of living in the territory.

A subsequent government who saw the amended law as open-ended, convoluted and unsustainable because it would change the social fabric and political landscape of the Virgin Islands, adopted a policy in Cabinet in 2004, that doubled the duration to 20 years before an application for residency for belongership could be made, and limited the number of persons who could be approved annually for residence to 25, Wheatley said, adding that its legality was questioned in 2013 by the Complaints Commissioner due to its inconsistency with the law.

The policys contradiction of the law was also captured in the annual report of the International Ombudsman Institute 2012-13. This problem was also picked up during the Commission of Inquiry, he said referring to the more than 900-page report released by the Commission of Inquiry to Gov. John Rankin following a 15-month probe into widespread fraud in the BVI government.

The COI was requested by Rankins predecessor August Jaspert. Since its release, the report has been driving change in the British territory.

The Commission of Inquiry report recommended a review of the existing residency policy and processes for granting residency and belongership status, including the open discretion by Cabinet to grant such statuses, and the length of residence required for belongership, among other things, he said.

In the report, COI Commissioner Sir Gary Hickenbottom said in relation to belongership applications that the Board is allowed to play its full role, and the Cabinet follows the Boards recommendation in most cases.

However, evidence was presented to the COI that shows that the Cabinet has been and is prepared to exercise its discretion in a legally arbitrary way and, if necessary, in a manner which is inconsistent with the statutory criteria for these important statuses.

On the evidence, it seems quite clear that at least 224 applicants for belongership were granted that status outside the framework of the law in 2011, he said.

Hickenbottom recommended a review of processes for granting residency and belongership status, and in particular the open discretion currently held by Cabinet to make grants. He added that any such powers should only be maintained where necessary; and, where any such powers are maintained, then they should be subject to clearly expressed and published guidance.

Wheatley said in his Mondays radio address that currently there is an immigration law that allows for applicants to apply for residency for the purpose of belongership after 10 years, and sets no set limit on how many applications can be approved per year.

He said there also has been a policy in place for some time that is inconsistent with that law, as it doubles the time required to begin application for residency for belongership and severely limits the number of approvals per year.

Both the existing law and longstanding policy are not fit for purpose and have been the cause of much confusion, Wheatley said. The answer has always been to further amend the Immigration and Passport Act, as opposed to the various fixes that have been tried.

Wheatley pointed out that while applications for residency for such a purpose can be submitted as early as 10 years under the law, there is a process that must be followed to consider whether applicants have earned the privilege of being granted residency.

Previous governments have failed to amend the law or change policy as was previously recommended, but the Government of National Unity will do so in a manner that is clear, fair, and socially and economically sustainable, he said. However, we are not going to make any legislative amendments without consulting the public. This is why we must begin a structured dialogue to find the best way forward. We will be announcing public meetings very soon.

Read more here:
Wheatley to tackle immigration reform in BVI - Virgin Islands Daily News

A Border Patrol agent walks along concertina wire at Border Field State Park. Photo by Chris Stone

A routine press release from the Border Patrol caught my eye because of its detailed tally of the countries of origin of two groups totaling 224 individuals apprehended this month in Imperial Beach. The list read like the United Nations.

Yes, there were Mexicans, as everyone assumes, but the majority were from Brazil. Also in the mix were immigrants from Sierra Leon, Peru, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Haiti, Gambia, India, Cuba, Romania and Nepal.

They crossed the border through drainage tubes, with smugglers using blowtorches to cut bars inside the tubes.

These groups caused a minor problem for the Border Patrol because most of the migrants didnt speak Spanish.

Americans, especially those who regularly watch Fox News, can be forgiven for thinking we have a problem with immigration from Mexico. Its a narrative that has unfortunately become as American as hamburgers, French fries and pizza.

Brazil? That countrys authoritarian president is already warning that the upcoming election may be rigged against him. And he speaks glowingly of the days when that country was ruled by a military junta. So it makes sense that smart Brazilians would want to leave.

Nigeria? Its booming with oil wealth, but also crime ridden and polluted. These immigrants clearly arent worried about the American cesspool of crime seen by Donald Trump .

Romania? Its near Ukraine and might be Vladimir Putins next target in creating a new imperial Mother Russia. Unless you like one-man rule, you might want to leave now.

Nepal? In the 1960s counter-culture Americans flocked there to seek the enlightenment of the gurus. Maybe now an economic future outweighs inner peace.

The truth is, people from all over the globe are risking all to come to the United States.

This is generally considered a problem. Many Americans dont appreciate an influx of people bringing other cultures that some worry will undermine our society. They also worry that immigrants will take jobs and drain public coffers through welfare.

But what if we viewed this influx as an opportunity? If you have a business and people are literally risking life and limb to get your product, then you have an opportunity.

This opportunity is clouded by preconceptions, of course. Many people think immigrants are only coming for handouts. But why would you travel thousands of miles, even across the ocean, with just the clothes on your back for food stamps? There has to be a more significant reason.

The answer is ironically opportunity itself. Immigrants have a reputation for working hard and taking jobs natives wont. Whos going to pick tomatoes, deliver Amazon packages and care for millions of aging Baby Boomers? We have jobs, and immigrants know it. Furthermore, they know that here at least they have a chance to improve their situation by working hard, maybe even starting a business.

Many Americans, even those opposed to immigration, would recognize this in their family history. My wifes ancestors, who came from Belarus and Ukraine, were trash haulers when they first arrived in America. Their children went to college and founded companies. Maybe even the immigrant owners of Fox News can recognize this in their past.

So why dont we find a way to harness the risk-taking drive of most immigrants?

In a world where Americas chief adversaries China and Russia have negative population growth and citizens clamoring to leave, maybe immigrants are an opportunity for America?

In a world where oligarchs and crony capitalists dont want change, why dont we welcome talented entrepreneurs to America with open arms?

In a world where education is restricted and autocrats want to control thought, why dont we educate the most promising students here to help build the American economy.

I dont have the answer, but comprehensive immigration reform should leverage the opportunity presented by the United Nations of migrants arriving at our border.

America is still, as the Pilgrim John Winthrop said, and President Reagan famously reiterated, a shining city upon a hill. Lets take advantage of this.

Chris Jennewein is editor and publisher of Times of San Diego.

Originally posted here:
Opinion: Maybe America's Immigration 'Problem' Is Really an Opportunity - Times of San Diego

After 11 years, Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler is vacating her congressional seat to run for the U.S. Senate. The absence of an incumbent in Missouris 4th congressional district has attracted no fewer than seven GOP candidates in what political forecasters consider a safe Republican seat.

The district takes in the southern Kansas City region, including Cass County and part of Jackson County, and stretches through mid-Missouri south of the Missouri River.

The race is possibly the most competitive and crowded in the state, and Republican candidates have raised nearly $4 million between them.

The seven GOP candidates vying for the seat are State Sen. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville; Taylor Burks, a former Boone County Clerk; Mark Alford, a retired Fox 4 Kansas City newscaster; Kalena Bruce, a CPA and farmer from Stockton; Bill Irwin, a retired Lees Summit police officer; Kyle Stonner LaBrue, a property developer from Osage Beach; and Jim Soupy Campbell, a bar owner and former Saint Louis Blues player from Climax Springs.

Campbell, who could not be reached for comment, does not have any social media accounts or website presence. Of the more than $1 million he has raised, all except $6,050 in individual contributions consists of a loan he made to his campaign.

The remaining six candidates unabashedly support former President Donald Trump and his America First agenda. All of them are opposed to increased gun regulation and abortion rights.

In May, Missouris congressional redistricting took effect. Rep. Sarah Walsh of Ashland quit the race because the new map put her in the 3rd district.

The change left Burks, Alford and LaBrue outside the 4th district, and Bruce made it a campaign issue. In May, she called for them to quit the race. But Missouri law does not require a candidate to live in the district they represent.

Brattin, who has spent nearly $46,000 on television ads, has been criticized by his opponents for sending out more than 76,000 pieces of official mail drawing on his budget as a state senator.

While the mailers are legal, critics say its a questionable use of taxpayer money to campaign for a different office. According to the Missouri Independent, the mailers were directed to those most likely to vote in the primaries.

I have a mailing budget to communicate with my constituency about the things that I'm doing or have done in the past session, and that's exactly what these mailings did, Brattin told KCUR. I'm not gonna negate speaking with the people that I represent about the things that I have done over the past session, just because it actually shows that I'm working and being a voice of them in Jefferson City.

Abortion

Although all the GOP candidates oppose abortion rights, they differ on what role the federal government should play.

LaBrue says that since birth control is readily available, there should be no right to abortion. After Missouris near-total abortion ban went into effect following the U.S. Supreme Courts reversal of Roe v. Wade in June, some health care providers have said the legality of birth control measures like Plan B is unclear.

If you make an exception for rape or incest which I think most people logically would does that mean that every abortion that's performed now is rape or incest? LaBrue told KCUR. How do you separate the two? You have to be careful because with the government, if you give em an inch, theyll take a mile

Brattin and Irwin support banning all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

At a debate earlier this month broadcast by Kansas Citys PBS and sponsored by the Missouri Times and KMBC Channel 9, Brattin noted that he sponsored a bill allowing lawsuits against anyone helping a woman cross state lines to obtain an abortion.

Brattin said he would support a federal bill making it a crime for doctors to provide abortions to a person from another state.

Burks and Bruce would support exceptions to Missouris abortion ban in cases of rape or incest or where the health of the pregnant person is endangered.

This is a state issue and it needs to be done on the state level, Bruce told KCUR. On the federal level, we can defund Planned Parenthood. We can do some of those other things to help in states, maybe, where their voters aren't holding their legislators accountable.

Burks told KCUR that the federal government should not regulate who crosses state lines and should play no role in abortion policy beyond defunding Planned Parenthood and making sure military facilities are not used as safe havens for abortion.

Education

Brattin told KCUR he opposes critical race theory and supports school choice. He wants to dismantle the Department of Education and stop linking federal funding to school districts.

The federal government doesn't need to be involved in education at all, Brattin said. [Parents know] what's best for their child and not only are they going to get a great education, but a value system that backs up their values while they get educated, not one that's hostile to it and undermines people's beliefs. That's what the education system's supposed to be, not an indoctrination process.

Bruce said she supports federal funding for schools but does not want the money tied to curriculum and testing requirements. She also wants to create a task force to address the teacher shortage.

While LaBrue supports school choice, he wants guarantees that school vouchers can be used for private religious schools and homeschooling.

I feel like at the end of the day, how a child is educated should be in the hands of the parent, not an acronym or some kind of federal statute, he said.

Immigration

At the July 15 debate, Bruce was the lone candidate to endorse even modest immigration reforms. The other candidates want to shut down the border completely.

Immigration reform has been kicked down the road by Congress after Congress, Bruce said. Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, we need a reliable workforce. We need the migrant workforce that is used to doing those jobs because there are a lot of those jobs that Americans simply dont want to do.

But somewhat contradictorily, she also said that at the end of the day, we have to close the borders, we have to secure our farms, ranches and businesses there on the borders, and we have to cut down our spending.

Brattin noted his sponsorship of legislation to ban sanctuary cities and impose penalties on companies hiring undocumented workers.

As a state senator, Brattin voted for legislation making it a crime for an immigrant to be found in Missouri after being deported, requiring public universities to charge out-of-state tuition to undocumented immigrants and denying them the A+ scholarship program.

Irwin, Labrue and Alford likewise say they want to secure the border.

Weve got to finish President Trumps wall, we must deport illegal aliens, Alford said during the debate. We have enough jobs here in America for Americans to fill and we need to stop paying people to stay at home and not work so those positions can be filled so we can get our nation back on track.

Transgender rights

Brattin and Burks, both veterans, dont want transgender people serving in the military.

The Obama administration reversed the ban on openly trans military service in 2016, but in August 2017 the Trump administration reinstated it. In January 2021, President Biden reversed Trumps ban.

Burks said that since transgender people are nondeployable during their transition period, they should only be allowed to serve under the sex they were assigned at birth.

I have a few service members that I served with who are transgender, Burks said. At the time they served in their born gender, and I think that's an appropriate way for transgender service members to serve. I'm not trying to put anybody back in a closet, but we also have to recognize that there are several physical and psychological conditions that disqualify somebody from serving in the military.

At the debate, Brattin said transgender people should be banned from the military.

I find it to be a difficult situation to say yes but not realize the ramifications that will come, the aftermath of that, Brattin said. I dont want to adopt any policy that will end up turning our military into a social experiment.

Alford and Bruce both said that they would support transgender military members so long as there was no conflict with their service.

I believe the dont ask, dont tell situation makes the most sense for our military and our country, Bruce said. As long as it doesnt affect the purpose of our military, as long as our military stays strong and its not something our leaders focus on, I believe that we can coexist together.

Jack Truman, a Democrat from Lamar, and Randy Langkraehr, a Libertarian from Warrensburg, will face the winner of the Republican primary on Nov. 8. Political forecasters consider the 4th district to be solidly Republican and rate the possibility that either will best the GOP nominee, whoever that turns out to be, as highly unlikely.

See the rest here:
Missouri's 4th district GOP primary is one of the most competitive races in the state - KCUR