By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Wisconsin dairy farmer John Rosenow relies heavily on immigrant labor, with approximately 90% of his farm’s workforce being immigrants, many of whom are undocumented. These workers, like Kevin, a young undocumented immigrant from Mexico, perform demanding labor for wages exceeding those available in their home countries, but significantly less than what American workers would demand. Rosenow emphasizes the financial impossibility of employing American workers at comparable wages, highlighting the vital role undocumented immigrants play in the dairy industry’s success. Despite the threat of deportation, some workers, like Kevin, express a degree of resilience born from past experiences.
Read the original article here
A dairy farmer’s lament about a potential economic downturn resulting from a mass deportation plan highlights a complex issue at the heart of American agriculture. The farmer claims that replacing his undocumented workforce with American workers would be financially devastating, citing a hypothetical annual cost of $100,000 per American worker compared to his current, significantly lower, undocumented labor costs. This claim immediately raises questions about the accuracy of his figures and the ethical implications of his business model.
The farmer’s assertion that paying American workers a fair wage is unaffordable directly reveals a reliance on exploiting a vulnerable workforce. The median household income in his predominantly white community is far lower than his stated cost, indicating that his numbers might be inflated or, more likely, that he’s unwilling to pay competitive wages. This suggests the farmer’s business model inherently depends on underpaying workers to maintain profitability. The very real possibility of the mass deportation of his workforce, however, is causing him to confront the consequences of his choices.
The farmer’s plight also underscores the larger problem of undocumented workers employed in the agricultural sector. The claim of needing to pay $100,000 annually for an American worker is troubling not only for its likely inaccuracy, but also for its exposure of a system built on underpaying, often exploiting, undocumented individuals. Stories of young workers enduring grueling 12-hour days, six days a week, without overtime pay paint a grim picture of the realities faced by those who often work at the margins of the labor market.
The situation compels a deeper examination into the farmer’s own actions and choices. Many express outrage, not only at the potential economic hardship the farmer faces but also at his apparent lack of remorse or awareness. The argument that deportation will destroy his business ignores the fundamental unfairness of his current practices. It is presented as a consequence of a policy he ostensibly supported rather than an acknowledgment of the ethical compromise underpinning his operation.
The situation further exposes a broader systemic issue: the reliance of many industries on undocumented workers for cheap labor. This reliance creates a climate of exploitation that undercuts wages and working conditions for all, while simultaneously undermining the rule of law. The farmer’s openly admitted violation of employment laws, by employing undocumented workers, coupled with his lack of apparent concern, highlights the hypocrisy inherent in some arguments against immigration reform.
The response to the farmer’s predicament reveals a complex range of emotions. Many feel sympathy for the economic hardship, but this sympathy is heavily tempered by anger at the farmer’s exploitation of undocumented workers and the perceived hypocrisy of his complaint. Some argue that if his business cannot survive without relying on undocumented, underpaid labor, then it is perhaps not a viable business model.
The situation also prompts reflection on the consequences of voting for political candidates who advocate for policies that directly impact one’s livelihood. This particular farmer, and others in similar situations, chose to support a candidate who campaigned on mass deportation, despite the foreseeable consequences for their own industries. The consequences were entirely predictable, making the outcry all the more ironic.
The core issue boils down to the ethics of cheap labor and the systemic exploitation inherent in many agricultural practices. While the farmer’s economic concerns are understandable, they cannot overshadow the deeper ethical issues his situation reveals. Ultimately, the farmer’s plight serves as a case study not just of the potential impact of mass deportation, but also of the unsustainable nature of economic models built on the exploitation of vulnerable populations. The question remains whether this situation will serve as a catalyst for genuine reform or merely highlight a deeper, systemic problem.