Week 9: Interview with John Laird (Pt 2)

Hi! Welcome back to my blog. Last week, we went over a key figure in the policy making and immigration reform in Monterey County, John Laird, as well as discussed a portion of my interview with him. This week, we’re going to finish going over the interview and talk a bit about what we can take away from this discussion. So without further delay, onto the interview!

Question: Part of my project is that I’m looking towards what solutions or what kinds of actions can the government, communities take to mitigate these effects. Like you mentioned, you’ve been working on a lot of policy that is helpful towards this. How do you think these policies will affect these communities, and do you think creating these policies was really effective in mitigating these negative impacts?

JL: “I think those government policies are effective, but let me back up a little bit to the first part of your question, because in some ways you were saying what people could do, or what people expect, and this is one of those cases where we have been a democracy. A democracy, when it’s properly functioning, fully empowers individuals to take actions and to speak out. And I think that’s an important thing here because one of the things I’ve learnt, due to being involved in policy and government for a long time, is that people that are on city council or other places respond to the public sort of saying this should be our standard, you know city, county, or state. And if there’s large pushbacks saying “we really support the people here, regardless of immigration status, our end crops are dependent on it, a lot the industry are dependent on it”, and we really need to, whether it’s letter to the editor, demonstration, signs on freeways, interacting with different people that are opinion makers, it is that way that we are working on it that is a necessary path.” 

Senator Laird makes a point here that I think is very important to the situation. He asserts that a democracy, in its purest intent, is a system that empowers the voices of its people. In its totality, as he explains, the government’s actions are based on and in response to the actions and the beliefs of its constituents. However, this is not something we actually see in today’s federal government. As I mentioned in Week 5, when we discussed social movements, there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of rallies across the country petitioning against ICE and other immigration enforcement measures. From rallies and riots in Los Angeles to school walk-outs across the nation, the constituents have made it very clear where their beliefs lie. On the other hand, the federal government has not done anything to support these beliefs, to promote a change in its policy that acknowledges and adheres to the demands of its people. Instead, they warp how these social movements are viewed, calling the movement the problem rather than addressing the actual issues underlying it. While this ideally would work in theory, as the government can perpetuate its side of the story as the dominant power, the rise of the internet and a digital age has not only decreased the confidence and blind trust constituents have over the government, but also inhibited the government from perpetuating false stories. As in the case of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, regardless of how much the government tries to push the story that ICE agents were simply doing their job, that these individuals were hostile, the dozens of recordings and uploads of the incident allow the people to look beyond the story told to them and draw their own conclusions. 

JL: “The thing to take away, and the thing to keep on the back of your mind is that if you are somebody that’s feeling challenged, or somebody that’s feeling threatened, or somebody that’s feeling like they can be scooped off the street or with limited civil rights, it’s very important for people to speak up so that they know that a lot of us want to have their back, a lot of us want to be able to be supportive in any way we can, and that the community standard is set. Because a substantial number of people in the community speak up and say, this is what is our city, or county, or state should stand up for. So as much as we are having a conversation about what different things the state has done, a lot of what this is about is about what individuals could do.” 

To interrupt here, I want to point out an important factor in this entire project. As I’ve gone through the social movements and activism, as well as the reactions of these communities, I recognize that one of the strongest supports the immigrant community has is the people around them. The most effective solutions to the problems so far have been from communities that rally to their government, that protect the individuals, and that help to promote a healthier and stronger support system for immigrants. If it weren’t for the riots, for the petitions of these communities, as Senator Laird points out, the government can not know what the people want. While, as I mentioned above, the federal government continues to defy the majority opinion, the same can not be said for the state government, especially in California. As I demonstrated last week, the government has actively worked to promote and create bills that promote immigrant rights and ensure that those detained will not be harmed wrongfully, all while obeying the law. Bills such as AB 1216 and the California Values Act protect migrants and help them fight for their rights, regardless of status. However, none of this would have been possible if it were not for the rallies by communities. The government wouldn’t be able to provide legal aid to these immigrants if it were not for organizations such as Know Your Rights that compiled and informed the public about the rights of immigrants regardless of status. The government would not have created laws that abided and promoted the “Welcoming State” values if the idea had not been introduced and pushed by CISNE, an organization I mentioned in Week 5, who are dedicated to promoting the rights and protecting immigrant individuals. The government would not have even known the impacts of immigration enforcement if it were not for the hundreds of rallies, walkouts, and petitions that made their way over, showing the government what happens when industry workforces are reduced by the federal government itself. It was primarily due to the social movements, activism, and active petitioning that the government was even able to make laws, and make petitions that helped the immigrant communities in return. 

Question: How do you think political views have shifted in the communities during this current administration?

JL: “Well, I think that there are poll results in more high level, a generic level about immigration, and I think in the election in 2024, there was a view by the majority of the people, that the Biden Administration had been lax in immigration and that really strong measures were called for. And yet, those strong measures are not polling well with the American public. There have been some poll questions where the majority of Americans, they think that the immigration enforcement has gone too far, and that it needs to be dialed back, and I’m sure there’s lots of individual things.”

The part of my project that I’d had the least success in compiling information on was the political section, primarily understanding how the recent policies have shifted the viewpoints of communities. It’s well regarded that agricultural communities tend to lean right on the spectrum, mainly due to lower taxes and smaller government involvement. However, the current administration seems to be contradicting both aspects. Not only does the government have higher inflation, which means higher costs for everything, avery harmful trend in the agricultural industry, but their immigration policy increases the level of government involvement in the workforce of farms in a primarily negative manner, hurting the livelihood of these communities. I expected there to be a change in the viewpoints, but had yet to find a way to measure this. 

With that in mind, Senator Laird mentions a poll taken in early 2026. Done by the Pew Research Center, this poll actually measures American sentiment towards the Trump Administration’s policies. Looking at the results, it becomes pretty clear, like Senator Laird mentions in the interview, that Americans do not favor President Trump’s strong policies. 60% of the community disagrees with the policy preventing visa applications from 75 countries, 64% disagree with the strong detention facilities put in place, and 66% strongly disagree with the policy that prevents all asylum seekers from seeking to live in the US. The strong disagreement with these policies indicates a disgruntlement of communities with the actions taken by the President within his first year. Furthermore, in the middle of the census period, the killing of Alex Pretti occurred. When looking at the data, it appears that there was a moderate shift in Republican views over face coverings worn by ICE officers and using looks as a basis for discrimination following the killing. This demonstrates a shift in the mindset of communities and a shift in the political views of the agricultural communities, as they are the groups most negatively effective by this incident. 

Question: How severe is the current labor shortage and how does this attribute to the immigration policy uncertainty or that fear that we mentioned at the beginning that’s beginning to rise up?

JL: “Well I feel as though I’m a little at a loss on this because we’re not getting data, we’re getting stories that are empirical. So I hear that there’s certain problems in places picking crops, but I don’t have a measurement of it. I don’t have an, “okay, 90% of the crops are picked and entire crops tried to rot in the field.” So that’s the tough thing is that there’s not really compiled statistics on this to help measure it. But I do hear stories of people struggling to get crops picked and to the market.”

Question: Is there anything in those stories that is an indication to maybe some of the negative effects they’ve been having, or any details as to what they are experiencing?

JL: “Just anecdotally, if there is someplace where a crop isn’t being picked, that it’s having an economic impact. But once again, I just don’t have the data. You know, there are crop reports that are done every year by county that tell you how much, what the financial benefit is, and that thing, we’ll have to look into those reports and see if they show dents. And you see, there’s certain intersection of other issues that don’t make this easy to track. I mean, if we’re in the middle of a drought, and some farmers are turning crops under, or not continuing to water trees, or doing any good number of things, and it might be that there’s a environmental impact as well as an ICE impact, and you try to make sure you can ascertain the reason for something. I’m hoping when these crop reports come in, they give us a further understanding, they might be helpful.” 

For some context, I’ve looked into the crop reports back when I was analyzing the economic and social impacts. The main issue I faced is that the latest crop report from Monterey County is dated to 2024, before the recent presidency. This means a lot of the information I was looking for is very limited, which is one of the main reasons none of my previous posts include the crop reports, as well as why both Senator Laird and I are unable to reference them to analyze the difficulties with the agricultural production. 

Question: what actions do you think, whether it be policy or administrative or any sort of things in general, would be the most beneficial to protecting, well, Monterey County is my focus, but not only Monterey County’s agricultural reform, but just as a general workforce?

JL: “I think that the most powerful things that can be done are to build coalitions of unusual suspects, to organize, to protect the status of the agricultural workers. And what I mean about this broad coalitions is, obviously, there are labor unions, labor advocates that wish to defend the workers. There are citizen activists that believe these immigration policies and scripts are unfair and fight them, and there’s the unusual coalition partners, because people that are farmers and own a lot of the AG industry are probably more conservative than probably supported the president in the last election. And if people of that opinion join together with the activists and the unions, and the other people to defend to defend the documented people or other people who just have immigration issues, then there’s somebody in the coalition that speaks to everybody across the political spectrum. So it’s trying to build those coalition with these people that might not be the usual suspects to be in the coalition to make sure that organization leads to some successful results within the political end.”

So let’s look at some solutions by Senator Laird. 

Economic: 

In terms of economic solutions, Senator Laird doesn’t particularly come up with one solid solution. However, he does point out that much of the economic impacts can be helped with social movements and political actions. Hence, focusing on which ways we can make the social movements and communities stronger, and by developing beneficial legislation, we can help sustain the economic stability of these agricultural regions. 

Social: 

Senator Laird is a firm believer that social movements are a step to successful protection. Whether it be organizations like Know Your Rights or bigger movements like protests and petitioning to the government for action that needs to be taken, the actions taken by the community are pivotal in bringing attention to these issues and highlighting negative impacts that may be overlooked. Finally, Senator Laird shares some of the similar sentiment to Congressman Panetta about the importance of having communities stay active and present in situations, to keep recording and keep an active record of situations that occur. Like I mentioned earlier in this post, these aspects are important in documenting the actual stories of events, and showcasing multiple points of view. 

Political: 

Senator Laird has a stronger stance on what political actions can be taken to prevent these negative impacts. Actions like promoting bills into Congress, similar to the ones he’s done, are effective in giving these communities a space to stand and speak, and providing them with the support they need to defend themselves against ICE raids and other enforcement actions. 

With that, I’ll leave you with a note from Senator Laird. 

“We hear stories at the legislative level all the time. We do a thing on the floor where every week, two or three legislators stand up and remember someone that has died in their district. It’s called adjourned in memory, and we’ll adjourn the Senate in the memory of whoever that member stands up and honors for their life. And Monique Limon, who is now the Senate president from Santa Barbara, did an adjournment memory for a worker that was hiding from ICE enforcement and fell off and was killed in the process, and how touching it was that his last communication was with his family that didn’t know how he would come out of this, and different things. And so, highilghting those stories and being aware of those impacts, is part of what we, as a state legislators, are obligated to do.”

I would like to give a special thanks to Senator John Laird, Ms. Khalida Sarwari, and the rest of the team for being an amazing help for this project, for making the process of talking to them very easy and for providing me with extra resources as I continue through this project. 

That’s all for this week. I’ll see you next time!

Sources: 

Nadeem, R. (2026, January 29). How Americans view key Trump administration immigration policies. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/01/29/how-americans-view-key-trump-administration-immigration-policies/