American Farm Bureau Federation

What The Trump Administration's Mass Deportation Plans Could Mean for Agriculture

Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:47:38 GMT

Farmers and food industry leaders are warning that President-elect Donad Trump’s plans to deport millions of immigrants could devastate agriculture — an industry in which immigrants make up a good chunk of the workforce.

Nearly half of all farmworkers are undocumented, and industries such as dairy and meatpacking plants are especially vulnerable to labor shortages.

“Admittedly, there are some people who slip through,” says Scott VanderWal, vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Perspective employers are required to take documentation that appears to be legal and valid. There are times when that’s not the case and then ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] comes in and cleans house, the workers disappear and go wherever they take them and the employers are left without help.”

While the H-2A visa program has grown, it only covers seasonal work and cannot replace year-round jobs at meat processing plants and on dairy and pork farms.

“Our packing plants need labor. Many of our farms use temporary visa labor — educated, skilled individuals work on our sow farms,” says Lori Stevemer, president of the National Pork Producers Council. “We have been experiencing an increased number of denials over the past year, which really makes it a challenge to find workers. The H-2A visa doesn’t work well when we have animals that need care 24/7, year-round.”

Experts say mass deportations would disrupt food production, raise prices and jeopardize the stability of U.S. agriculture.

Deportation falls under the Department of Homeland Security. President-elect Trump has selected South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem to lead that agency.

“With Governor Noem at the helm, she’s going to bring common sense to that discussion and make sure we don’t close businesses, make sure we get everyone in line, get the workforce in line and then make sure we’re following our country’s rules,” says Hunter Roberts, secretary of South Dakota’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Meanwhile, farm groups continue to urge for reforms to immigration policies or a guest worker program to secure a stable workforce.

“At the same time as controlling the border, we need to overhaul our labor system,” VanderWal says. “We need to make H-2A apply to your own workers or come up with a decent program that will help.”

We need some type of H-2A visa reform to allow those workers to stay year-round, Stevemer adds.

Even then immigration is likely to continue to be a political hot potato in 2025, and labor shortages will continue to top the list of challenges for agriculture.

American Farm Bureau Terminates Illinois Farm Bureau's Membership, Illinois is Taking Filing a Lawsuit

Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:19:38 GMT

The Illinois Farm Bureau (IFB) is no longer a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The American Farm Bureau Federation has decided to terminate the Illinois Farm Bureau’s membership, effective Dec. 20, 2024. AFBF President Zippy Duvall announced the termination, which is expected to have a significant impact on farmers in Illinois.

The IFB has filed a lawsuit against the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). The lawsuit was filed in McLean County, Illinois. It claims this termination violates a 1990 settlement agreement between the two organizations, which allegedly allowed IFB to continue using the name “Illinois Farm Bureau.”

Duvall stated that the decision to vote out the Illinois Farm Bureau is related to maintaining “farmer control” of organizational decisions. The IFB argues that AFBF’s action threatens to deprive them of important membership rights and benefits, including a voice in national farm policy issues.

IFB President Brian Duncan expressed that they have “no desire to leave AFBF” and believes that AFBF is choosing to abandon more than 70,000 Illinois-based farmer members. The lawsuit seeks to halt AFBF’s decision to expel the Illinois Farm Bureau.

A letter from AFBF President Zippy Duvall to state farm bureau presidents said the action comes after a failed mediation session on Monday. The move is in retaliation for a decision by the Illinois Farm Bureau’s affiliate, Country Financial, to drop a Farm Bureau membership eligibility requirement for non-farm insurance policy holders in Illinois.

“The membership decision is expected to cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of farm bureau members, to the detriment of Illinois Farmers, Illinois County Farm Bureau organizations, IFB [Illinois Farm Bureau] and the entire Farm Bureau organization,” wrote Duvall, a third-generation dairy farmer from Georgia who has headed the AFBF since 2016.

Country Financial told customers in September it would no longer require Farm Bureau membership for nonfarm policies. Membership costs about $20 per year. AFBF receives $5 of those dues. Country Financial operates in 19 states. It is the largest farm insurer in Illinois.

The expulsion of the Illinois Farm Bureau from the national federation marks a significant change in the relationship between these agricultural organizations. The IFB has about 400,000 members. More than 70,000 are farmers, farmland owners, and agriculture industry professionals, according to the IFB website. Its farm membership comprises about 75% of all Illinois farmers.

The IFB has been operating for over 100 years. It will no longer be part of the larger national network. This separation could potentially affect various aspects of support and representation for Illinois farmers, including:

Legislative advocacy at the federal level
Access to national resources and programs
Participation in national policymaking for agriculture

Of note:

While the Illinois Farm Bureau will no longer be part of the American Farm Bureau Federation, it will continue to operate as a state-level organization.

Ag’s Big Break With Fishermen’s Win at Supreme Court

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:53:27 GMT

Fish stories are hard enough to believe, but even harder when their origin hails from the capital of tall tales and broken promises — aka Washington D.C.

But this time, this fish story is true.

These fishermen didn’t just tell their story down at the local pubs, coffee shops or Sunday school class, they told it in front of the nine justices at the highest court in the land — the Supreme Court. In the end, their story may have totally upended how business is done in our nation’s capital and how business is done in almost every industry across the entire nation, including agriculture.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff fishermen in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning the longstanding Chevron deference — a legal precedent that gave federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting congressional statutes. Specifically in this case it limited the authority of NOAA Fisheries, a government agency, to implement regulations without clear guidance from lawmakers.

In early 2020, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided those who operate herring boats were required to pay for the federal monitors who periodically ride along during fishing trips. Such monitors were put in place to make sure fish catch limits were not being exceeded and fishing methods were practiced in compliance with regulations.

The rub that these fishermen had was not necessarily the presence of such monitors aboard their ships. Rather it was the fact that government agency, NOAA, mandated the fishermen were on the hook for paying for the monitors. In essence, it was the bureaucratic equivalent of paying the fox to guard your own henhouse.

This ruling by the Supreme Court throws a wet blanket on how government agencies have operated for the past 40 years.

Predictably, bureaucrats are now playing the Chicken Little card saying the sky will fall, rivers will turn red, and the skies will turn black. Meanwhile, businesses and many average joes are celebrating the ruling saying maybe – just maybe –a little common sense has been restored in how our lives and businesses are regulated on a daily basis.

The Ripple Effect
Could this be the nudge needed so we can start to have some truly honest two-sided discussions about things like gas stoves, gasoline cars, and burping cows before we hastily put everything we know out to pasture? Maybe the world, in which every day is a new day with another new regulation, will finally stop spinning or at least slow down.

There is no doubt the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine will certainly clip the powers of federal agencies to issue regulations. This will most heavily impact agriculture when it comes to federal regulations surrounding food and drug safety, environmental and welfare standards. The real world impact at the agency level is that these regulations will be harder to create and enforce, affecting progressive efforts in specific areas like agriculture runoff, wetland protection, climate, and animal treatment guidelines.

The river of tears currently being shed by the regulatory class and their enablers was essentially self-inflicted. If they were humble enough to look at themselves in a mirror, they might realize that. The pendulum of power had swung too far in their direction because, by default, they were gifted broad powers to interpret the vague laws that Congress failed to detail from the beginning. You know the saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

As much as it may look like the Supreme Court knocked regulatory agencies down a couple of notches, it exposed the real underlying issue, Congress is lazy when it comes to writing its own laws. It has probably only gotten worse over the past 40 years since the Chevron Doctrine has been in place.

Who can forget the infamous words of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on the eve of the House of Representatives vote on health care reform (aka Obamacare) back in March of 2010? “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” Pelosi said. That pretty much sums up how Congress has operated during most of our adult lifetime. At least six justices said it was time for lawmakers to grow up and start doing their job.

What This Means For Ag
Many agriculture trade groups hailed the decision as a clear victory. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) all released statements in support of the decision.

“For decades, Congress has passed vague laws and left it to federal agencies and the courts to figure out how to implement them,” AFBF’s President Zippy Duvall said in a response to the ruling. “AFBF has argued on behalf of farmers who are caught in a regulatory back and forth when administrations change the rules based on political priorities instead of relying on the legislative process. We are pleased the Court heard those concerns.”

Incidentally, one of the first significant pieces of agriculture legislation that Congress may get to try its new ‘big boy pants’ on is the much delayed farm bill. The new rules will push the legislative bodies to be much more detailed and elaborate in the legislation in order to avoid judicial challenges and ensure regulators can actually implement the key provisions of the bill.

The much anticipated farm bill is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the end of Chevron deference could possibly affect the future of the agriculture industry in this country.

For example, this could thwart the Biden Administration’s EPA’s unwavering push to regulate the waters of the U.S — down to the sometimes dry creek running through your back 40. This ruling essentially puts the EPA up a creek without a paddle.

There are hundreds, possibly thousands more examples of regulatory overreach gone wild among dozens of federal agencies. Depending on what we do in the diverse industry of agriculture, we all could easily name off our top regulatory thorns in our sides. This ruling certainly will ease that pain in the future, but don’t expect smooth sailing from this point forward.

Those in power don’t give it up willingly, so you can bet the fight is on. Experts predict farmers may experience less regulatory burden in the future, but it will lead to more direct legal challenges for them in court. You can also bet that all those progressive outside influencers who helped shape so many head scratching regulations over the past 40 years, are now moving across the street to help Congress put such nonsense down in writing from the get go.

For now, enjoy this David vs. Goliath story, as this one was sweet.

When social justice cheerleader publications like Teen Vogue and formidable environmental powerhouses like the Natural Resources Defense Council are putting out head exploding rants after the ruling, you know you and your industry was on the right side of providence.

Here’s a tip of the cap, to some scrappy East Coast fishermen. Well done!
_____________________________________________________________________________
Related Stories:
How the Supreme Court’s Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture
ARA Deems Supreme Court Decision Reversing Chevron Defense as Good News for Ag Retail