Immigration a local issue
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Nov. 29, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
The agriculture community is 2 percent of the population embracing the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050. For us, immigration is not a citizenship issue nor is it a border-state issue. It is a real-life, complex issue impacting the food-supply chain.
Immigration needs to be resolved at the congressional level. But it is important that you know how immigration impacts Pennsylvania agriculture.
With agriculture as the number-one industry in Pennsylvania, generating $6.7 billion in cash receipts and $67 billion in total economic impact, the commonwealth's agriculture producers and related businesses require a reliable, trained and legal workforce in order to produce a safe and secure food supply.
Our immigration system is a broken relic of the past. We need a workable solution to the barriers that make it difficult for Pennsylvania's farmers to secure a reliable, dependable and consistent workforce. The agricultural industry needs real, meaningful immigration reform that will encapsulate the many shortcomings of our current policy — mainly addressing the antiquated visa system, the temporary worker program and, of course, enforcement of the law.
All too often, the current system tragically turns away the very kind of workers who could have an immediate impact on Pennsylvania's agricultural industry, which struggles to find a workforce needed to harvest our food supply.
Christian R. Herr
The writer is executive vice president of PennAg Industries Association.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Knives vs. guns I
- Knives vs. guns II
- Bloomberg & coal
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- Bike lanes welcome
- Sign on to save Springdale
- The Obama Doctrine I wonder …
- Tragedy sensationalized