By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently proposed replacing undocumented migrant farm workers with “able-bodied adults on Medicaid” as part of the administration’s plan for mass deportations and an “Americanized” agricultural workforce. This proposal, announced during a press conference, has generated significant criticism from labor advocates and health policy experts, who deem it unrealistic and economically unsound. Critics emphasize the potential for disruption to food production and price increases due to the loss of undocumented farm labor. Rollins also announced new restrictions on foreign land ownership, particularly involving countries like China, while industry groups express concern about potential labor shortages.
Read the original article here
Trump Official Suggests ‘Adults on Medicaid’ Take Migrant Farmworkers’ Spots in Pledge to Continue Deportations
The idea is circulating: replace migrant farmworkers with adults currently receiving Medicaid, all in the name of deportations. The plan, as it appears, involves a shift in the agricultural workforce, possibly as a direct consequence of intensified deportation policies. The implications, however, are staggering, raising questions about the physical capabilities, financial realities, and sheer practicality of such a proposal.
This concept seems to completely misunderstand the makeup of the Medicaid population. Many individuals on Medicaid are already employed. Additionally, a large portion of the remaining recipients are either physically unable to work, or are full-time caregivers. Putting someone like my cousin, who has MS and is mostly wheelchair-bound, to work in the fields is simply absurd. Those with serious medical conditions or disabilities, as well as their caregivers, are not exactly ideal candidates for the demanding labor of agricultural work.
The logic also falls apart when considering the practical realities of farm work. These jobs are often seasonal and migratory. They are incredibly strenuous, requiring long hours in difficult conditions, not to mention, farm jobs often don’t offer healthcare. Could you imagine the logistics of people with medical conditions, the elderly, or those requiring constant care commuting to farms, assuming they can physically perform the job?
Then there is the issue of wages and benefits. Farm work often pays low wages, and rarely includes health insurance. How would this compensate for any medical expenses? The suggestion seems to ignore the fact that many people on Medicaid are there *because* they are working in low-paying jobs that don’t provide benefits.
Furthermore, the rhetoric suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of government assistance. There’s this common myth of able-bodied people lazily exploiting benefits. The truth is a very small percentage of Medicaid recipients commit fraud. The vast majority are either working, disabled, elderly, or caring for others.
And what about the jobs themselves? Farm work is exceptionally demanding, a sentiment from someone who worked on a bok choi farm for six months. The physical toll can be brutal, and the conditions are tough. It’s not a job anyone would choose willingly, and it’s certainly not a job that is easily adaptable for those with medical issues or mobility problems. Even those in good shape find it difficult.
The motivations behind this suggestion appear to be deeply flawed. On the one hand, the desire to deport migrant workers. On the other, an apparent belief that the “lazy” poor are freeloading. This idea suggests replacing a workforce, often made up of those who are undocumented and working to send money home, with people who need medical assistance. It’s a plan that seems to disregard human dignity.
The suggestion echoes historical failures and displays a concerning lack of empathy. The idea of forcing vulnerable populations into grueling manual labor recalls historical instances of forced labor under oppressive regimes. The idea that people on Medicaid, including those with serious medical conditions, can simply step into the roles vacated by deported workers is not only unrealistic, it’s cruel.
The plan could potentially affect millions. The KFF, for example, indicates that a substantial number of Medicaid recipients are already employed. The claim that they are lazy and that they can just move into farm work to replace those deported workers, is a misrepresentation of the Medicaid recipient demographics. This plan seems more likely to make things worse, not better, and could result in a massive labor shortage that affects us all.
Moreover, the proposal highlights the broader ideological underpinnings of this policy. It suggests a fundamental distrust of the poor and a disregard for their well-being. It’s a proposal that seems to prioritize punishment over compassion, and ideology over reality. It is a solution that addresses neither the actual needs of farmers, nor the needs of the people on Medicaid.