Thread: Ag Jobs lobbyists are in action

Farmworker group to lobby Congress to back AgJOBS act

By ROSA RAMIREZ
Staff Writer

While agricultural workers in northwest Volusia County said they live in constant fear of immigration raids, being fired from their jobs, and getting stopped by police while driving because they're here illegally, they say they're not alone in their worries.

"Employers have a lot to lose . . . maybe even more than us," said 46-year-old Cristobal Garcia, who said he himself has documents but many of his co-workers don't.

A dozen members of the Farm Worker Association of Florida, including two from the Pierson area, will spend today through Thursday in the nation's capital lobbying Congress to overhaul immigration rules for agricultural laborers.

The group plans to tell lawmakers to support the Agriculture Jobs Opportunity and Benefits Act of 2007, commonly known as AgJOBS, because not supporting it would ultimately hurt the agricultural industry in the state.

"The government and the bosses need to know how much migrants help this country," said Pascuala Avellaneda, one of the members of the association who will be in Washington this week. "Who's going to be left to do all that work?"

Marcos Crisanto, who heads the Pierson office of the association, estimates there are between 130,000 and 150,000 farmworkers toiling in Florida's ferneries, orange, tomato and dairy farms. Of those, some 70 percent are illegal immigrants.

If passed, AgJOBS would allow longtime illegal immigrant farmworkers to adjust their immigration status and eventually apply for U.S. citizenship, after paying a fine and meeting certain requirements.

"This is something that's important to many, including employers," said Crisanto.

Steven Camarota, director of research for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies that advocates for strict immigration rules, said any proposal permitting illegal immigrants to stay in the country has a slim chance of getting enough votes to pass.

"There isn't much appetite in Congress for legalization for those in the country illegally," he said. "Does it have a chance of passing? Absolutely. Does it have a good chance of passing? Absolutely not."

He said the proposal lacks the support from other industries, such as restaurants, hotels and construction, which also rely on illegal foreign workers and have traditionally backed immigration laws that would allow some to become legal.

"They don't get anything out of AgJOBS. Sure, it's more modest and likely to get more support. But you also peel off the political coalition," Camarota said.

But Robert Williams, director of the Migrant Farmworker Justice Program, who supports AgJOBS, doesn't think that's so.

Of the immigration bills that have been introduced, AgJOBS has the most bipartisan support "as a practical solution with respect to this one sector," he said.

Williams said Florida stands to get hurt the most if Congress focuses mostly on immigration enforcement without giving agricultural workers an opportunity to change their immigration status.

"Any proposed crackdown on illegal immigration can incredibly disrupt the agricultural industry. Florida has the most to lose," Williams said.

Avellaneda, 72, said she's going on behalf of thousands of farmworkers in Florida who don't have documents -- or a voice.

"Thanks to God, I was able to get papers. But many people here have not. Being united is what's going to make us strong," said the former fern cutter.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJ ... 100107.htm

I am calling again...sheeez...but it is nice the lines are wide open...and you can say what you need to say Like just say... No to Dopes

We should get on this quick. AgJobs would be a HUGE amnesty, in numbers it could well top the 1986 amnesty. I've called some key senators already; hope others are too.

All these amnesties popping up gives me a headache!

Another AgJobs article:

California Farm Bureau Federation
No-match suit doesn't excuse responsibility
Issue Date: September 12, 2007

By Christine Souza
Assistant Editor

As they were preparing for its repercussions, agricultural groups in California and across the country were pitched a curve ball on Aug. 31, when a federal judge temporarily blocked the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security's new social security number "no-match" rule.

But agriculturists familiar with the issue cautioned that the impact of the court's action on employers is limited.

"The judge's restraining order doesn't necessarily stop the clock from running on employers. It does not automatically mean DHS will not send out no-match letters," said Luawanna Hallstrom, California Farm Bureau Federation labor committee chair. "The court order might delay those letters going out, but it in no way means employers are off of the hook."

The order in the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, blocks the rule's implementation until Oct. 1. At that time, Judge Charles Breyer will consider whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would block the rule until a trial is held.

Brought by various labor organizations led by the AFL-CIO and represented by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys, the suit charges that the no-match rule violates the law and workers' rights and imposes burdensome obligations on employers who receive Social Security Administration letters informing them of alleged discrepancies between employee records and SSA's database.

Judge Maxine Chesney found that the labor groups "raised serious questions as to whether the new DHS rule is inconsistent with statute and beyond the statutory authority of the DHS and the SSA."

Her order also stops the SSA from mailing no-match notices that include a DHS letter advising employers on how they should respond to the notices. About 140,000 employers across the country, involving some 8 million workers, were set to get those packets. However, the order does not appear to bar SSA from mailing its notices without the DHS guidance letter, said CFBF Associate Counsel Carl Borden.

"While it's unknown whether SSA will mail no-match letters by themselves, I suspect SSA will simply wait for the court's next ruling, which could lift the hold," Borden said.

A no-match letter states that the combination of name and Social Security account number submitted by an employer to SSA for an employee does not match SSA records. Each spring and summer, the SSA mails no-match letters to employers who filed more than 10 Internal Revenue Service forms W-2 for the prior year that result in a no match on the Social Security number.

This year, however, at DHS's request, the SSA postponed the mailings. DHS requested that because it wanted to see if Congress would pass immigration-reform legislation. When that didn't happen, DHS issued its final no-match rule and told SSA to get ready to mail no-match letters.

But despite claims by government officials that they have not yet been mailed, Borden said he has received information that the SSA recently mailed no-match notices and at least some with the DHS guidance letters.

The rule's summary says if a discrepancy involving an employee is not resolved and the employee's identity and work authorization cannot be verified by a reasonable procedure within 93 days after the employer received the no-match letter, then the employer should fire the employee. Otherwise, Borden said, the employer risks a DHS finding that the letter gave the employer constructive knowledge that the employee was not work-authorized and, by continuing to knowingly employ an unauthorized person, the employer broke the law.

Borden addressed members of the CFBF Labor Policy Recommendation Committee last Wednesday about the issue and recommended that employers wanting to reduce their risk of having a no-match letter used against them follow the no-match rule's safe-harbor steps despite the court's holding action. By following the safe-harbor steps, even if the rule isn't in effect, he said, an employer should be able to establish that he acted in good faith to fix the problem.

"DHS says its rule is merely a clarification of the law and gives employers a way to have safe harbor if DHS were to discover that an employee identified in a no-match letter lacks work authorization," Borden said.

"So, no matter the rule's fate, the government and civil attorneys can argue you had constructive knowledge of an employee's lack of work authorization because you didn't try to resolve a discrepancy cited in a no-match letter, even one you received a long time ago about a current employee," Borden said. "That's an evidentiary issue that exists independently of the no-match rule. So, you still need to take some reasonable action to counter that charge."

Hallstrom said the no-match rule could buoy efforts to get Congress to act on AgJOBS, a bill that would reform the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program and give alien farmworkers a way to earn legal status.

"AgJOBS for agriculture is still our primary objective. We must get this legislation for a temporary worker program through so that we have a long-term fix to the immigration and labor issues that agriculture faces," Hallstrom said. "If anything, I believe the no-match rule has probably fueled the effort even more because we realize that we absolutely have to get legislation passed."

Christine Souza is a reporter for Ag Alert.

http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStor ... 906726EBFE

"AgJOBS for agriculture is still our primary objective. We must get this legislation for a temporary worker program through so that we have a long-term fix to the immigration and labor issues that agriculture faces," Hallstrom said. "If anything, I believe the no-match rule has probably fueled the effort even more because we realize that we absolutely have to get legislation passed."

And we have to absolutely make certain it FAILS

AgJOBS for agriculture is still our primary objective. We must get this legislation for a temporary worker program through so that we have a long-term fix to the immigration and labor issues that agriculture faces," Hallstrom said. "If anything, I believe the no-match rule has probably fueled the effort even more because we realize that we absolutely have to get legislation passed."

NO. THE ANSWER IS NO. WE WILL FIGHT THIS. THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO THE EMPLOYMENT DILEMNA. AND THERE IS NOT A SHORTAGE. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE WILLING TO PAY SOMEONE TO DO THE WORK AND ALSO ADHERE TO THE LABOR LAWS. SOME MECHINIZATION WOULD NOT HURT EITHER...YOU KNOW THE MECHINIZATION THAT WAS STIFLED IN THE 60's?

DITTO!!! "jp"




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orange Alerts!
"CAPS ACTION ALERT.......Please take ACTION"...."Dream Act"
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... c&p=488118
Support.. HR1940 STOP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=81156
STOP..HR1999 15million$$$$ funding to LaRaza
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=80374
"State Legistatures for Legal Immigration" PETITION
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=84944
Welcome to "AIIPAC"
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=83274
WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT ALIPAC Please Contribute!!
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=C ... page&pid=9
Contact Info...Senators, Representatives & USEFUL INFORMATION
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... c&p=384761

Well, since the no-match letters are again on hold, they don't need the AgJobs legislation passed. No more excuses -- NO AMNESTY!