By Joel Lidstrom
Caledonia MN
An interesting document published by President Trump’s U.S. Department of Labor (“Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States”) cautions that there is now “the risk of supply shock-induced food shortages” in the United States. It warns that “The near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens, combined with the lack of an available legal workforce, results in significant disruptions to production costs and [threatens] the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S consumers. Unless the Department acts immediately … this threat will grow as … enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws [is] deployed.”
What does this mean? It means that the deportation of illegal immigrants who do agricultural work in the U.S. threatens our food supply and will, without an immediate correction, cause food prices to increase and supply to diminish.
Any escalation in food cost and diminishment of supply will mean less income for our agriculture sector. Add to that tariffs that have triggered punitive duties placed against our agricultural exports, and we face rising food costs even as our farmers’ opportunities to sell their crops shrink. It is a lose-lose scenario that is inflicting harm on our farmers, our economy, and our standing in the world.
President Trump’s “act now, think later” immigration and tariff policies are fraught with consequences. For decades, farm labor has relied on an undocumented, mobile immigrant workforce that could easily accommodate various growing seasons, adjust quickly to shifting and often unexpected labor demands, and provide great expertise while expecting a modest wage. At the same time our farmers, in longstanding partnership with Republican and Democratic leadership, have worked to create and sustain global export markets. Now both have been damaged.
Without swift action from Congress that clears the way for a reliable influx of immigrant workers, agricultural employers will be unable to maintain operations, and the nation’s food supply will become less bountiful and more expensive. And lacking a retreat from our President’s tariff-mongering, with a restored commitment to cooperative trade with countries around the world, farm income will become even more tenuous. As a hungry world grows hungrier, we Americans may find ourselves out of step with international cooperative trade as we struggle to produce food sufficient only unto ourselves.
Anonymous says
November 6, 2025
It’s amazing how silent the corporate news media has been regarding this fix for the current shutdown, which could have been done at the beginning, eliminating the need for a shutdown altogether.
The “Big Beautiful Bill”, passed earlier this year, received a 50-50 vote in the Senate, a tie vote that was broken by J. D. Vance, assuring passage by a 51-50 vote. What is amazing is that even three Republican senators voted against its passage.
Every single budget matter that was passed by the Senate during the Biden administration was accomplished by using the budget reconciliation process. There are a number of rules establishing guidelines for bills passed via budget reconciliation, which is typically used once per year, but was used two times each in 1982, 1997 and in 2006. Under the Byrd Rule, budget reconciliation can be used up to three times per year.
Trump has recently challenged the Senate to end the filibuster. Past “carve-outs” allowed nominations before the Senate to bypass the 60-vote filibuster hurdle. A similar “carve out” could be done very easily to allow passage of budget bills with a simple majority vote. Republicans are likely reluctant to establish this precedent, which would allow a Democratic majority to do likewise in the future. This would not require ending the filibuster altogether, but a new “carve out” could be limited by very specific, narrowly defined criteria..
The rules regarding filibusters (and exceptions to same) were created by the Senate and can be changed by the Senate.
This story, published yesterday by The Western Journal via MSN, does to the shutdown what Toto did when he pulled away the curtain behind which the Wizard of Oz was hidden. The link to that story is here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-snapped-at-lindsay-graham-during-closed-door-meeting-with-senate-republicans-report/ar-AA1PTckt
Should you go to the preceding link, you’ll find reporting by Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio, which reads in part…
.
“Trump said the GOP will become a ‘dead party’ if they don’t nuke the filibuster,” Desiderio posted.
He added: “Trump got into it with Lindsey Graham after Graham tried to make the point that they can still use reconciliation to pass legislation with a simple majority.
“Trump snapped at Graham: ‘Lindsey, you and I both know that there’s so much you can’t do with reconciliation …'”
So which of the many potential reasons as to why the Republicans would want to cause the shutdown apply in the present case? It seems that the shutdown never needed to occur in the first place. Of course, the simple majority process would allow Republicans to claim 100% of the credit for any successes that ensue or alternatively, to be saddled with 100% of the blame for any untoward effects.
Added note: You can easily find the information that follows if you perform a simple web search…
It is estimated that $20 billion would fund health care so that, roughly speaking, the same system that is in place this year could be extended through 2026. Soybean farmers must be thrilled that the White House decided to direct $40 billion to support Argentina’s autocratic leader, Milei, whose radical economic “medicine” was causing the economy to circle the drain. This $40 billion promise of money was made just prior to Argentina’s election, in which Milei was allowed to retain power. The day after this announcement, Argentina eliminated its export taxes on soybeans, and sold 20 cargoes (shiploads) of soybeans to China, an amount equivalent to 1.3 million metric tons. The White House then announced a quadrupling of Argentinian beef imports, which will help that country’s farmers but depress the prices that U. S. beef producers will receive.
All that said, perhaps the Minnesota farmers are very pleased for Argentina and their farmers, who apparently need the money more than they do? We heard the slogan “America First” repeatedly, but where is the explanation as to how this qualifies as “America First”?
But what’s $40 billion, after all? That’s only $117.65 for every man, woman and child in this country. A perfectly reasonable measure to help out a “friend” of the White House?