A Postindustrial columnist, farmer, and candidate for the Michigan State Senate proposes solutions to agricultural labor and immigration challenges.
The United States is facing pressing immigration and agriculture issues:
- Farmers can’t get the labor they need to work on their dairies or to pick their fruits and vegetables.
- Current U.S. law does not allow for the longer-term guest workers that farms, such as dairies, need – the current program is limited to 10-month stints.
- The foreign labor U.S. farmers can get is very expensive and not competitive with the labor costs in foreign countries.
- The United States has an asylum pipeline that will result in around 3 million people being subject to deportation – which is a very expensive proposition.
Let’s help our existing pool of asylum seekers by providing them with a humane way to self-deport if they are not granted asylum – while at the same time supporting our American farmers.
Provide asylum seekers who lose their asylum request a portable agricultural work permit
Of the 3.9 million asylum seekers in the country, at least 75% will eventually be denied asylum. Even under President Jimmy Carter’s administration, only 20 to 25% of asylum requests were granted.
By the time a final asylum determination is made, the U.S. economy will have spent a substantial sum on the entire asylum process, and these families will have been fully vetted. Let’s not put that expense to waste.
Instead, for those who are denied asylum and do not have a criminal record, allow them to obtain a portable agricultural work permit for 2 years, extendable for an additional 2 years at the farmer’s request.
This will allow the family to amass funds so they can return to their home country or their country of choice whenever they deem appropriate, blending immigration enforcement with economic utility.
Indeed, the United States has a “Project Homecoming” which provides a $1,000 to $2,600 stipend and free flight home to incentivize self-deportation. My proposal would dramatically increase this to a meaningful amount that would allow the denied asylum seeker a real chance in the country of their choice.
To address the “overstay” risk and to secure their self-deportation, place a percentage of the worker’s pay (perhaps 10-20%) into a secure account. Making sure not to repeat the mistake of the Bracero program from 1942-1964, where funds were deposited with the Mexican government’s Banco de Crédito Agrícola, where millions of dollars were promptly stolen.
Instead, deposit the funds into either a U.S. financial institution or a digital wallet backed by U.S. Dollar Stablecoins (to address instability in the worker’s home country). Those funds would be released to the worker upon the worker’s exit from the United States.
These funds can be substantial, particularly where the farmer provides housing. Many undocumented guest workers already follow this path. A substantial nest egg accumulated over 4 years is eminently doable. Certainly enough to buy prime agricultural land, build a house, and start a major local business upon self-deportation.
This proposal kills many birds with one stone:
- It is a humane way to allow asylum seekers to stay in the country and self-deport at any time during the term of their agricultural work visa;
- It addresses the labor shortage for farmers in Michigan;
- Importantly, it provides the long-term guest labor that farms, such as dairies, require – which is not available under the H-2A program.
- It reduces labor costs for Michigan farmers because it avoids the excess costs of the H2A program – that do not benefit the guest worker;
- American farmers are already paying an “asylum fee” when they obtain an H2A work visa – this program allows the farmer to benefit from those fees;
- Self Deportation saves the federal government deportation expenses.
Let’s not forget that one of the strengths the United States has over China is our ability to attract immigrants
Like many other advanced countries, the U.S. population will soon peak and then begin to decline slowly.
China is facing the same population decline, but in a much more dramatic fashion:
- China’s population is already in decline – having lost 3.4 million people in 2025.
- China will begin losing over 10 million per year in the 2030s, peaking at 14 million per year.
- China is facing an acute labor and talent shortage
The difference is that America can use immigration to keep its population stable or smooth a gradual decline.
China can’t.
Not only does China not want immigrants, but immigrants, by and large, do not want to go to China. If they do, there is almost no pathway to citizenship.
Let’s not squander this strength we have over China. If we so desire, the United States can use immigration to manage its population thoughtfully. We need to determine how many immigrants to let in, and who they should be.
This proposal is one way to leverage this superpower.
Let’s take advantage of it.
