ALLOW YEAR-ROUND AGRICULTURAL WORK

This proposal would allow year-round agricultural work within the H-2A temporary visa program. The year-round H-2A visas would be valid for three years. Currently, H-2A visas are limited to “temporary or seasonal” agricultural labor needs, meaning employers must show that the work is tied to a defined season or other finite period rather than ongoing year-round demand. This definition leaves out some types of agricultural work that don’t have defined “seasons” such as dairy farming, livestock operations, and greenhouse or other controlled-environment agriculture.  

The Case For 

Supporters argue that allowing year-round agricultural jobs under the H-2A program would address persistent labor shortages in sectors like dairy and livestock. In these sectors, the work doesn’t follow crop seasons but continues year-round. They contend these jobs are among the hardest to fill with US workers, and not mainly because of pay. The operations are typically in rural areas with shrinking local workforces, and they compete for workers against industries offering steadier, less physically demanding jobs. Supporters note that economists broadly agree the domestic farm workforce has been shrinking for structural reasons rather than because of pay. The rural population that long supplied these workers has moved into other kinds of work. Supporters also point to what these employers actually do when they can’t find workers. Rather than raise wages enough to attract US workers, they scale back, consolidate into larger, more mechanized operations, or close, particularly the smaller, family-run farms. Supporters further argue that expanding legal visas for this workforce would reduce reliance on undocumented workers. They argue that there can be no question that foreign workers in these jobs working under a year-round legal agricultural visa would be much better protected from exploitation and poor treatment than undocumented workers are. If we are genuinely concerned about foreign workers, they argue, the answer is to provide a safer, legal pathway for them. They also note that political opposition makes offering these workers Green Cards unrealistic. An option that can’t pass, they argue, is no protection for these workers at all. 

The Case Against

The case against allowing year-round agricultural work is argued from two distinct perspectives:

Concern For Foreign Workers

Those concerned about foreign workers’ interests accept the need to address the non-seasonal nature of dairy and livestock work but argue that H-2A is the wrong tool. If the work is permanent and year-round, they say, the workers doing it are not temporary, and a temporary visa that ties them to a single employer leaves them vulnerable. A worker who can’t change jobs has little power to push back against bad treatment, because losing the job means losing the right to stay in the country. These opponents argue that people filling permanent jobs should be offered permanent status, with a path to a Green Card and the freedom to change employers, rather than a temporary visa tied to a single employer.
vs
 Concern For Reliance on Foreign Workers

Other opponents are focused on concerns about the country relying on foreign labor to do its essential work. Some in this camp acknowledge that few US workers take these jobs, despite wage increases. But they argue that a country should be able to feed itself without building permanent, year-round food production on a standing class of temporary foreign workers. They would rather see fewer, larger, more automated farms than a permanent dependence on imported labor.