Fruits of Labor: The Impact of Immigration Policy on Monterey County Agricultural Production
Advisor: Parson
Internship Location: Inventus Law
Onsite Mentor: Abhilipsa Panda, Tech and Privacy Lawyer, Inventus Law
This project aims to examine how recent shifts in US immigration policy have influenced the agricultural economy of Monterey County, with a focus on workforce stability, income distribution, and social well-being. It also looks towards proposing policy or community-based solutions to mitigate the effects of these policies.
The research conducted through this project will involve both quantitative and qualitative data. A major aspect of the research project will be collecting data from nationwide and regional sources. This will include a mix of previously collected data and actual data collection from the county to have specific data for the project. The data will be quantitative, including an understanding of the region's demographics and preferences that determine the economic, political, and social climate. In addition, information will be collected on beliefs before and after recent immigration practices, if applicable, as well as problems or issues caused by immigration regulations. Finally, the project will contain qualitative data, including interviews, testimonies, and personal impacts, all of which, in total, will give a more holistic view of the issue. Finally, all this data will be compiled and reviewed to analyze a solution or set of solutions that would best help address the issues caused.
At the end of this project, a paper will be created analyzing the social, political, and economic impacts of recent immigration policy on the agricultural economy of Monterey County. Furthermore, a feasible solution would be created that could ideally help mitigate the negative impacts of these policies to create a more sustainable community.
Project Blog
Week 1: Background and Overview
Hi! My name’s Archita, and welcome to my first blog post! My senior project aims to analyze the social, political, and economic impacts of recent immigration policy on the agricultural region of Monterey County. I’m looking to see in what ways policies developed in the last ten years (from 2016 to 2026) impact the livelihoods of regions like Monterey County that are so heavily dependent on foreign labor.
President Trump’s policies on immigration during his first term demolished the majority of the work done before to promote immigration, which primarily focused on easing the restraints on immigrant legality. They immediately stopped DACA, which granted two-year permits and reprieve from deportation to illegal immigrants who met a set of requirements, instead focusing resources towards the RAISE Act (2017), which cut legal immigration in half. The Department of Homeland Security increased immigration enforcement. It reduced the number of green cards issued, although none of this was as effective in reducing immigration policy as President Trump had hoped. President Trump’s major contribution to the immigration policies in the US was to reduce the number of visas that were granted, which he did successfully at the rise of the pandemic.
Recent immigration policies are designed to detain immigrants for criminal charges. The Laken Riley Act requires the detention of non-citizens but prevents the use of bonds. However, looking at precedent, it becomes apparent that criminal charges have been historically used as an excuse to increase deportation. Immigration officials continue to use civil charges to deport immigrants, although these have devolved into criminal charges in recent times. Furthermore, President Trump’s recent policies have all focused on using past precedent to promote his immigration policies. He used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a policy that allows the president to restrain, secure, and remove a citizen under a declared war or invasion, to deport Venezuelan migrants. He has promoted military presence within the US Southern Border, and has continued to terminate student visas under provisions.
The repercussions of these bills are widespread, extending across the country in all industries, including agriculture. A great example of this would be their socioeconomic impacts on Monterey County, California. Monterey County is an agricultural region within the Bay Area whose primary workforce is concentrated in immigrant labor, and has been hit hard by recent policies. These policies not only inhibit general economic stimulation but also halt productivity and cause social turmoil within the region. The farms are unable to keep up with the high demand for processing produce as workers refuse to immigrate, despite having proper work visas to be in the country. Not only does this issue force the loss of thousands of dollars of produce, with no labor force ready to collect, but communities within Monterey County live in fear of raids or deportation, causing a steadily diminishing workforce without replacement.
I hope to create something that better analyzes the impacts of policies on the livelihood and economy of the agricultural region. I’m looking to use both databases correlating to many factors surrounding the economy and general satisfaction with policies, as well as go in person to Monterey County and get interviews with farmers and workers, where I can also showcase their stories and perspectives. Especially now, when policies, ideologies, and practices are constantly shifting in relation to agricultural labor, I hope to create something that brings attention to the growing divide and negative impacts. Finally, I hope that by the end, I will have created a solution that mitigates these negative effects.
Anyways, that’s all for now! Thanks so much, and I’ll see you next week.
Week 2: Literature Review
Hi! Welcome back to the blog. This week, I’ll be focusing on a literature review, focusing on the research papers and articles surrounding H-2A visas and immigration policy. I hope to use this as a good background for the rest of my project!
The first document I looked into was “The Role of the H-2A Program in California Agriculture,” by Phillip Martin. It explains how H-2A permits require two conditions to be obtained: there are insufficient workers in the US who can accomplish this task, and the jobs given will not adversely affect the wage or working conditions of US citizens within the same field. These two categories must be proven to the government before it issues any permits. For companies to be considered for permits, they must meet three criteria. One, they must have tried to recruit US workers and explain why these efforts were not effective. Then, they must provide free housing to all workers and out-of-area US workers, providing them with some sort of shelter. Finally, they must have the same no-adverse wage effect as before. Within Monterey County, they find a lot of labor sourcing by reusing workers from winter months in different regions, which does require an additional H-2A permit. This document also analyzed H-2A jobs, visa approvals, and their ratio over time. Looking at this chart, it becomes clear that there is a decrease in visas that were actually issued for government-approved jobs, indicating the increase in need for immigrant labor.
The work “The Importance of H-2A Guest Workers in Agriculture” by Jeff Luckstead and Stephen Devadoss analyzes the role H-2A visas play in the agricultural sector. H-2A visas have increased in demand significantly within the last few years. Farmers across the US are looking towards foreign labor to meet labor shortages, and Monterey County has one of the greatest numbers of certified H-2A guest workers. Farmers in California employ both a large portion of legal immigrants working in agriculture and the greatest number of undocumented workers. According to PEW research, California actually employs 2.35 million undocumented workers, which equates to about 21%.
Finally, we turn to “Empirical Characteristics of Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the USA” by Vincenzo Caponi and Miana Plescawe, where we analyze two aspects. First, it helps me understand the manner in which they separate documented and undocumented immigrants. In this study, they focus primarily on respondents to the American Community Survey (ACS) and compare it to claims made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others. First, they collect the data of all foreign-born respondents from the ACS survey, including people who are naturalized citizens, legal non-citizens, and unauthorized immigrants. Next, they removed naturalized and legal non-citizens, using a variety of statuses as baselines. They then used the statistical inference of unauthorized status, using a set of characteristics found commonly in undocumented immigrants to separate them, including year of arrival compared to visa availability within that year, employment characteristics, lack of legal benefits receipts, absence of legal ties, and age, and education patterns. Using this elimination process, they analyzed the distributions of the population. This leads me to the second aspect I analyzed through this document. This study gave me a good understanding of the percentage of legal and illegal immigrants in the area, a point of contention brought up within my proposal. This document provides a good understanding of the percentage of undocumented immigrants in comparison to documented ones within California. Looking through the charts, it’s noted that, when considering immigrants from further decades, there is a slight decrease in legal immigrants from 1990-2007, when compared to 2001-2007, and simply 2007. This demonstrates the impacts of policies on the immigration populations. Policies can only control so much, and it becomes easier to decrease and increase visa approvals to control job opportunities than to enforce the regulation of undocumented immigration. Hence, the contraction and expansion of immigration policy is clearly demonstrated in the variety of distributions in amalgamation. I hope to use that same principle when I analyze the data for the rest of my project, as it gives me an idea of the proportion of documented and undocumented immigrants under my analysis, something I want to consider.
The literature review gave me a clearer understanding of the impacts of foreign labor on Monterey County’s agricultural production, and reinforces the importance of the current issues in the workforce the region is facing. As I continue into the analysis of the data, I’m excited to discover more of the intricacies behind this growing issue.
That’s all for this week! See you next time.
Sources:
Martin, Philip. “The Role of the H-2A Program in California Agriculture.” Choices, vol. 34, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–8. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26758669. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.
Luckstead, Jeff, and Stephen Devadoss. “The Importance of H-2A Guest Workers in Agriculture.” Choices, vol. 34, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1–8. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26758668. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.
Caponi, Vincenzo, and Miana Plesca. “Empirical Characteristics of Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the USA.” Journal of Population Economics, vol. 27, no. 4, 2014, pp. 923–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44289691. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.
Week 3: Looking at Unemployment
Hi, and welcome back to my blog. This week, I’ll be focusing on what I gathered surrounding immigration policies and how they affected the economic profitability of Monterey County agriculture.
To understand the effect of these policies, I looked at the impacts on the workforce. However, there was a struggle in finding data that I could analyze. The data I found fell into two categories: it was generic, or it wasn’t relevant to the time frame. Between these two options, I thought focusing on the general data and comparing it to other specific factors would be the better choice.
With that in mind, here’s what I found. Within his first 100 days, the Trump administration enacted around 181 executive orders from January 20, 2025, to April 29, 2025. I decided to use unemployment in Monterey County as a specific measure for the effectiveness of these immigration policies. According to the Monterey County government website, agriculture is the largest economic sector in the region, producing around 16.3% of the country’s total 2023 economic output. Furthermore, the majority of the labor is immigrant labor, being non-citizens, both authorized and unauthorized.
I looked at Monterey County’s unemployment rates to see how these policies affected Monterey County hiring, keeping in mind that due to the high volume of agricultural production, it would likely be highly reflective of the agricultural sector. Looking at it, we can see that the unemployment, which remained above 10% in the beginning of 2025, from January to March, rapidly began decreasing following policies enacted by the administration. In fact, it hit a low in September of 5.4%. While a decrease in unemployment sounds nice in theory, it reflects a bigger issue. This indicates that there are fewer workers available to fill these roles. When the unemployment levels decrease, it reflects a growing need for labor, and, as the permits imply, a lack of supply within the US.
You may be asking, how can we tell that there is a lack of supply? As I mentioned last week, the H-2A permit requires two requirements, one of which is to prove there are insufficient workers in the US capable of filling these jobs. Monterey County currently holds the largest amount of H-2A permits in California, with 58.05% of the top H-2A permits given out being acquired from companies in Monterey County. This indicates that the area has sufficiently proven the first condition of the H-2A, and demonstrates that there is insufficient labor force within the US to maintain economic profitability.
Looking at the economic instability that is reflected in the data, we can see that Monterey County’s agriculture sector is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, a source dwindling as these policies continue to restrict and instill fear into these communities. As I continue into the next week, I am also looking to find new sources of data and find more specific sources for a clearer analysis, which I hope to be able to find this following week.
That’s all for now! See you next time.
Sources:
Bush-Joseph, K., & Chishti, M. (2025, April 17). In First 100 Days, Trump 2.0 Has Dramatically Reshaped the U.S. Immigration System, but Is Not Meeting Mass Deportation Aims. Migrationpolicy.org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-2-immigration-first-100-days
Monterey County Agriculture Drives Local Economy with Over $11 Billion Impact, New Report Shows | News & Information | County of Monterey, CA. (2025). Countyofmonterey.gov. https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/11665/1336?widgetId=1472
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate in Monterey County, CA [CAMONT2URN], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAMONT2URN, March 17, 2026.
Week 4: Agricultural Demographics
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. This week, I’m going to dive a little deeper into the demographics of farm workers and agricultural production to highlight the importance that immigrants play in the agricultural sector of Monterey County.
As I mentioned last week, the majority of US agricultural production is focused on crops and crop support, which account for around two-thirds of total production. There is a continued need for physical labor and support in crop harvesting, and production is a less automatable field than, say, livestock. This is also proven by the fact that fruit and nut production have the highest labor costs at around 33% of the total gross income of a farm. Furthermore, if we look throughout the last few decades, total agricultural employment has increased significantly, with an emphasis on the increase in crop and crop support, with an especially notable increase after 2010. This highlights the importance of labor in the market, as labor needs increase with agricultural production. Now, this is all on a national scale; however, Monterey County also has a major role within this, as they are the nation’s main strawberry producers, alongside a wide variety of other fruits and vegetables, an indicator of the high labor costs and workforce necessary within the last few years. The last thing I noted from these charts was the lack of effect national economic disruptions like the pandemic brought, highlighting the importance agriculture plays as the main food source and essential workforce.
I also looked at H-2A approvals certified by the State as time progressed. There are quite a few interesting things to note here. First, the total amount of H-2A positions that are certified increases over time, an indication of the increasing need for foreign agricultural labor. In fact, the trend showcases an acceleration in growth around 2015, although it has stopped growing at a rapid rate around 2022. This is a clear indicator of the increase in need for agricultural workers. As I mentioned in Week 2, H-2A visas allow farmers to hire temporary labor when there is not enough supply within the US. Another interesting fact to notice within this chart is that California has consistently remained one of the top three states in H-2A visas within the last ten years. Something I mentioned last week was how Monterey County remains the region with the highest H-2A Visa certifications, holding 58.05% of the top H-2A permits given out being acquired from Californian companies. This shows that Monterey County holds some of the largest amounts of H-2A visas nationwide. It also highlights the importance of seasonal labor and the growing need for farmworkers in these regions, since the labor force decreased following the recent administration’s policies.
Around 45% of hired farmworkers are unauthorized workers, holding a majority compared to authorized, naturalized citizens, and U.S.-born citizens. This further supports the idea that US agriculture is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, including a majority of non-citizens, at an approximate 80% by 2022. Furthermore, Monterey County is one of the most agriculturally dense areas in the nation, ranking within the top 10, which indicates that it is likely to have a higher than 80% non-citizen rate. This means that the majority of the agricultural output in Monterey County is going to be significantly affected by immigration policy, as it directly affects the availability of the majority of their workforce.
There is a dramatic rise in settled nonmigrant workers, an indicator of a shift towards more rooted farming, with communities that have lived here for generations. Regions like Salinas have, in fact, built communities built from these roots, created schools, businesses, and other institutions around their roots of farming. H-2A visa policies, particularly towards expansion, have grown in importance, as farmers and agricultural communities have continued to petition for an increase due to the growing struggle of agricultural demand. This is also why policies, such as the housing policy outlined in the permits, have started to shift to more permanent residences than the temporary ones from before, both as a response to the increase in settlements and to the growing need for labor.
With that, I’ve done a good bit of overview on the economic effects these policies have on Monterey County agriculture. Similar to last week, I’ve still had the problem of finding specific sources, but I’ve been able to use general sources and use more specific information to hone in on the aspects I would have liked. This technique seems to be working well, so I plan on continuing to use it if necessary. Starting from next week, we’ll be shifting gears to the social impacts, which I’m looking forward to since it’s the part more focused on the actions taken by organizations in response.
That’s all for this week. I’ll see you next time!
Sources:
USDA. (2025, January 8). Farm labor. Usda.gov. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor
Week 5: Community Responses
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. This week, we’re going to look into the organizations and their response to immigration policy changes. This includes the creation, development, and responses of these nonprofits.
First, I looked at Monterey County Immigrant Services Network of Empowerment (also known as CISNE). CISNE is an association of organizations dedicated to serving and assisting immigrants. Their associated organizations include the American Red Cross, Natividad, the UFW Foundation, Monterey County Office of Education, and Hartnell College, all important members of the immigrant community, a few of which I will talk about in later posts. CISNE has probably played one of the biggest roles in this community, as they have worked to change government policy and work with officials to make changes to community intention, behavior, and stance. One of CISNE’s greatest contributions is its enactment of “Welcoming County” Status. The “Welcoming County” Status, modeled after the California Values Act (SB 54), ensures that local resources are not used to help promote federal reinforcement and immigration handling. This means that the status guarantees that resources are not used to aid ICE or any other enforcement agency, and, as Monterey County has done, is used in trade to help preserve and emphasize the rights of immigrants.
This status had a huge response in the community. From resolution makers to supervisors, to public media, the community rallied in support of this policy, making statements such as “This is not about protecting people who may have created or caused heinous acts. This isn’t that. We’re truly focused on the community that comes here to work hard and to be part of the society that we all value here in the Salinas Valley.” Support was not the only benefit from this policy. Through this, figures such as Luis Alejo, the Monterey County supervisor, were able to distribute No ICE placards to be places in business doors and provide businesses with information on protecting and asserting their legal rights. The Welcoming County status helped boost morale overall and created a strong foundational support in the community.
CISNE also produced the Know Your Rights Campaign (also known as KYR). The campaign offered pamphlets, lectures, and workshops for immigrants, teaching them the legal rights they had as people on United States land, and instructing them on how to properly exercise those rights when necessary. One of the biggest parts of the KYR campaign was red cards. Red cards are cards that inform immigrants of their rights. As instructed by the card and organization, these cards are meant to also be handed to ICE officials when arriving at a house, and are suggested as an alternative to opening doors. The KYR campaign was a moment of great pride and positivity throughout the county, as it was not only a campaign supported by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, but also helped protect the rights of immigrants in a wide variety of positions, whether it be farm workers, as I am studying, or even students, as they announced schools were a protected area. CISNE has also offered multi-lingual resources, which inform audiences of their rights, regardless of status, in all languages to increase accessibility.
The second organization I looked at was the Watsonville Law Center. The Watsonville Law Center is an organization that provides free legal services to low-income individuals on California’s coast. Part of their focus is centered on promoting legal rights for immigrants and ensuring that they are aware of the rights they possess. In response to recent policy changes, the Watsonville Law Center has dedicated itself to creating community forums and visiting schools to inform students, immigrants, and all members of the community, regardless of status, as to the rights they possess, a similar mission to CISNE’s. They also provide more information as to what to do in these situations, and where and how they can report abuse of power by immigrant officials. Furthermore, they helped with the implementation of the Botón de Alerta. This was an app created by the Mexican government that activates legal support and helps inform families of people facing deportation or detention. This app was incredibly useful in passing information along effectively and bringing awareness to families as to the state of their loved ones. Watsonville Law Center continues to fight the policy’s negative impacts through actions similar to CISNE, focusing on educating the public as to their rights and actions in case of emergency.
The Solidarity Network Monterey County Response is an organization created in 2017, following the first term of Donald Trump’s presidency. During that time, it was created to support and ensure the well-being and security of immigrant families within the area. As we move into President Trump’s second term, the solidarity network continues to provide resources to the community. Their main focus is similar to those I’ve mentioned previously; they focus on providing resources on protection services. Furthermore, the network is similar to CISNE as it is an amalgamation of a variety of immigration protection organizations, including Watsonville Law Center, Whites for Racial Equity, the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, and the law offices of Blanca Zarazúa and Magnolia Zárraga. They also post updates on incidents and issues on Facebook to keep the community updated on the latest events.
These organizations have really inspired protest and advocacy within the Monterey County region and beyond, as dozens of schools schedule protests against ICE to highlight the dangers and injustices of current immigration policy. The community has been spurred to get up and show their support for not only the source of their economic stability, but also for the people who worked to get into the country in the first place. If you have free time or just want to support these groups, you should check out their websites, which I have linked below.
That’s all for this week. See you next time!
Websites:
Cisne, M. (2025). Monterey Cisne. Montereycisne.org. https://www.montereycisne.org/
Solidarity Network Monterey County Response. (2025). Solidarity Network Monterey County Response. https://montereycountyrrn.org/en/
Watsonville Law Center. (2026, February 10). Watsonville Law Center. https://www.watsonvillelawcenter.org/
Sources:
Cortez, F. (2026, January 31). Monterey County students protest ICE and immigration policies. KSBW. https://www.ksbw.com/article/monterey-county-students-protest-ice-immigration/70206726
County rolls out resources for immigrants, and prepares a welcoming resolution. (2025, January 9). Monterey County NOW. https://www.montereycountynow.com/news/local_news/county-rolls-out-resources-for-immigrants-and-prepares-a-welcoming-resolution/article_00641a10-ce11-11ef-89cc-3f86fc4afac2.html
Rosales, M. (2026, January 27). Monterey County supervisor offers “No ICE Access” placards to businesses. KSBW. https://www.ksbw.com/article/monterey-county-no-ice-access-placards-businesses/70148972
View all posts. (2025, February 11). Monterey County gets ready for anti-immigration policies – Voices of Monterey Bay. Voicesofmontereybay.org. https://voicesofmontereybay.org/2025/02/11/monterey-county-gets-ready-for-anti-immigration-policies/
Week 6: Interview with Jimmy Panetta (Pt 1)
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. This week, we’ll be looking over the interview I’ve had with Jimmy Panetta. The interview, despite being 15 minutes long, is very extensive, so I’ll be splitting it into two parts. This week, I’m going to look over who Jimmy Panetta is and go over the first half of the interview.
So, who exactly is Jimmy Panetta? Congressman Panetta is one of the U.S. House Representatives, representing the 19th Congressional district, which includes parts of Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and northern San Louis Obispo County. Following the redistricting of the region in 2021, he lost control of Watsonville and the other parts of Salinas, but still maintains representation over a small portion of it used to connect to the lower regions. He has worked steadily towards creating policies and advocating for immigrant rights and liberties. Here are some of his works:
- Blue Card Agricultural Worker Program Act: This was a proposed U.S. Immigration bill that was designed to help farmworkers gain legalized status and work authorization. Essentially, farmers would apply for a “blue card” by proving that they had two years of farmwork, paying a fine, and passing background checks. Following this, they would get this blue card status, and in three to five years, they could apply for citizenship. While it did not pass, a similar act, known as the SAVE Act, was passed in the House, although it did not make it through the Senate.
- Fam Workers Modernization Act: This act was first proposed in 2019, and has gone into the Congress every two years since. The original idea was an act that provided undocumented immigrants who had two or more years of agricultural service with a Certified Agricultural Worker (or CAW) status. This status was valid for five years, renewable, covered the entire family, and included built-in incentives for farmworker housing. This policy was actually passed in the House with a bipartisan vote, but died in the Senate. In the 2021 version, the bill added a few conditions, creating a minimum hour quota for the two-year requirement, and adding a new protection that stated farm workers could not be detained or deported as their application was pending. It was also passed in the House, only to die in the Senate. In the 2023 version, they increased the CAW status to 5.5 years and added Republican sponsors to try to widen the range. This time, the policy did not even make it into the House. Finally, the 2025 version allows CAW holders to travel internationally and re-enter the U.S. without needing another visa, and streamlines the H-2A process, which I explained in Week 2. This version is currently in Congress and has not yet been voted on.
- Immigrant Witness and Victim Protection Act: This act was created in 2025 and would protect undocumented immigrants who report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement. This is primarily important as it gives agricultural workers, regardless of status, a fair standing by allowing them to report issues such as wage theft, pesticide exposure, and unsafe conditions, which they may have feared to do earlier. This is crucial in regions like Monterey county where the majority of workers are undocumented, as I mentioned in Week 4. The Immigrant Witness and Victim Protection Act is currently in committee.
- Panetta’s Vote Against DHS Funding: While this is not a policy created by Panetta, his vote denying the DHS funding was a crucial support for counties like Monterey. His vote against an increase in funding stood as a vote against the rapid increase for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). His reasoning was that the bill did nothing to stop the power of ICE and CBP, especially as they would be able to operate with masks and no required body cameras, no required warrants, and no proper training standards.
Alright then, now that we’ve been introduced to Congressman Panetta and his policies, let’s hear what he has to say. I’ll input parts of the transcript, and then pause for explanations.
Question: Reports suggest immigrant residents are quietly withdrawing from public spaces, going out less, spending less, and staying home to avoid visibility. What can be and maybe is being done to help mitigate this fear, especially in regions with such a heavy immigrant population and dependency, such as Monterey County?
JP: “Yeah, look, a lot of fear stems from this administration’s mass deportation policy. A policy that is driven by Steven Miller, who is a special assistant to the white house and the DHS, and to me, has a great antipathy towards immigrants, especially those, no matter what their background is, to be honest with you, atleast that’s how it appears.”
To interrupt here, the administration’s mass deportation policy Congressman Panetta refers to is the Immigration Agenda run by Steven Miller, an agenda that, instead of focusing on arresting and deporting the worst of criminals, focuses on arresting and deporting the people with the lowest level of reasonable suspicion. The intent of the policy is a clear indicator of the extent of apathy, as mentioned by Panetta, that this administration holds towards immigrants. This is, of course, a contradiction to the Laken Riley Act, which requires the detention of non-citizens but prevents bonds, and was created with the intention of detaining and deporting criminals, named after the murder of Laken Riley.
JP: “So this administration’s policy has gone well beyond the targeting of felons and gang members as we’ve seen throughout communities, not just in California, but throughout the country. Obviously, peaking with what happened in Minneapolis, and the deadly shootings that took place of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. The reason that happened is because this administration is using ICE and CBP agents to carry out their own goals, yes, on immigration and deportation, but also targeting certain communities, and one of the reasons they are able to do this, because one, they’re properly funded.”
A few things to explain. First, the incidents in Minneapolis. On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot by federal agent Jonathan Ross. The administration claimed it was in self-defense and that Renee had run over an agent. However, the variety of accounts from civilians who were present at the scene and recorded contradicted these accounts, claiming a different story altogether. Only 17 days later, on January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti was standing on the street recording ICE agents. At some point, he stood between a woman and an agent, and was pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground, and then shot, after which he unfortunately passed. Similar to Renee’s case, several civilians' testimonies and recordings show that Alex was disarmed, as an agent removed his licensed gun from his holster, before being killed, indicating that he posed no threat.
Furthermore, what was claimed to be a gun being waved around by Alex before his death was reviewed and confirmed to actually be his phone, from which he recorded. These only go to show the extent of the aforementioned agenda and the goal mentioned of targeting not only criminals but everyone. Both these stories show the fatal impacts of targeting every immigrant, not simply the criminal ones.
JP: “So it’s not only a strategy to send ICE and CBP agents to carry out the goals, be it mass deportation or be it to have fear in vulnerable immigrant communities, but two, they’re also funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill…a significant amount of funding went to DHS. 191 billion, with a B, went to DHS. Of that, I think it was about 65 billion that went, particularly, just to ICE. So you had a lot of funding, you had a lot of policy behind it, and then you also had a lot of politics that were driving the policy. And what I mean by that is that they were using the funding to get people into ICE and CBP and then literally throwing them out on the street in an untrained fashion.”
Congressman Panetta is, of course, referencing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, an act created on July 24, 2025, by President Trump, that achieved a lot of aspects of his agenda, including fully funding the DHS and, through them, ICE.
JP: “And so, that caused a lot of the chaos, confusion, consternation, and death that we saw based on the lack of training of these ICE and CBP agents. Therefore, you have the fear that you have been talking about that has been spreading throughout communities, even if there wasn’t ICE or CBP in these communities, there was still this fear of what they saw in these communities.”
I think Congressman Panetta does a great job explaining what exactly has caused this fear that I asked him about. It’s really the amalgamation of the administration’s actions and the impacts they have caused, an indicator of the lack of sensitivity with which they deal with their execution of the immigration policy. Whether it be an agenda that focuses on detaining common people rather than criminals, or the tragic deaths of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti, civilians who showed no aggression towards the agents, the actions of the government have done nothing to assuage the fear of entire communities, not only of undocumented immigrants, but also of almost all people in the country, immigrants and citizens alike.
With that, I’ll leave you in suspense about what comes next. And by next, I mean, of course, next week. We’ll continue to look through the second half and what we can take away from this interview. Thanks for sticking around through this whole post, and I’ll see you the same time, in seven-ish days.
That’s all for this week. See you next time!
Bibliography:
Zolan Kanno-Youngs. (2026, April 6). Stephen Miller Is Still Pursuing His Immigration Agenda, but More Quietly. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/stephen-miller-is-still-pursuing-his-immigration-agenda-but-more-quietly/
Week 7: Interview with Jimmy Panetta (Pt 2)
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. If you were here last week, you’ll remember that I was going through my interview with Jimmy Panetta, where we discussed a bit about the fear that builds up in these communities, and how exactly the government has added to these fears rather than reducing them. This week, we’ll continue to look through the second half and what we can take away from this interview.
We will do what we did last week, inputting portions of the transcript, pausing for what’s going on, and addressing some points he has made.
JP: “And so we, as federal, state, and local public servants, and you know, activists, really need to come together to remind and reassure, with resources, vulnerable communities that were there for them…they need to know, basically, that if they face deportation, they should be treated fairly, they should be treated within the laws of this country, and that they should not be treated as felons, as gang members, but that basically, knowing that ICE and CBP need to be treating them with respect and dignity.”
Congressman Panetta refers to the government’s job to reassure communities that they have the support and assistance of their officials in preserving their basic human rights in the scenarios of deportation or imprisonment. Here’s exactly how well that is going. The United States government has, as of April 9, detained 60,311 immigrants in their detention programs. Of this, 13,099 are convicted of murder, and 15,811 are convicted of sexual assault. As mentioned before, the Trump Administration has used the Laken Riley Act as its reasoning behind detaining immigrants, who they believe are “the worst of the worst”, despite less than 50% of detainees being convicted felons. There is also an indication of a 2450% increase in the detainment of immigrants with no criminal record, not only a violation of the Laken Riley Act’s intent, but also a violation of rights, which Congressman Panetta has also pointed out. Furthermore, immigrants who are detained are being detained for indefinite periods of time, being pressured to give up their court dates, and are on an official “no release policy”. Judges for these immigration cases are told to deny bond to thousands of people who were previously eligible. Within these camps, immigrants face inhuman conditions, from overcrowding to little to no medical care, to abusive conditions, and documented inhumane conditions that violate detention regulations. Congressman Panetta really addresses the necessity of advocacy and the pertinence of informing these communities of their rights and their own autonomy, to not let the government subject them to inhumane and illegal treatment.
AS: “Yes, so kind of piggybacking off that, you did mention a lot about making sure that they have the resources, and making sure that they are aware, and I know, there are quite a few organizations that have done that-”
JP: “Especially at the local level. Which is very, very important. And, obviously, at the federal level, we ultimately need to do immigration reform, and we can get to that in your questions. That is our goal, and where we can have an impact. But at the local level, really, it’s local groups, local people, coming together, getting out into the streets, getting out into these communities, showing them that the resources are there to support our immigrant communities.”
We mentioned a bit about these groups in Week 5, when we discussed many groups that were able to launch social movements and support these communities. They did things like hand out red cards and give presentations informing immigrants and all members of the area about the risks and dangers posed by ICE and other deportation officers, and explaining what to do in these situations. All these resources are an amazing help to these communities, and help them receive the aid and protection they need to protect their rights.
JP: “Yeah, look, I think a lot of the things that you got to realize is that a lot of the pushback, and some of the slow reform we’re seeing at ICE and CBP is not because of this administration or because of this Congress, but it’s because of the people in the streets doing what they do best, which is taking out their phones [guesturing to his phone], and videotaping. I mean, that’s why we’re able to see what happened with Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. It’s why we’re able to see how ICE, DHS, and CBP are acting in our neighborhoods with this complete impunity and lack of training, and basically being able to point and use those videos to call ICE, CBP, and DHS out, and this is why Kristi Noem was fired.”
We talked about the incidents with Renee Good and Alex Pretti last week. The removal of Kristi Noem from her position as Secretary of Homeland Security refers to the various incidents that led to her getting fired, from the two incidents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti shedding light on the injustices and contentious actions she made during her time in this position, to the allegations of her misuse of federal funds and services. None of this would have been brought to light without the internet, which gives people fast and widespread access to current events at the moment it happens. Not only does it allow people to be more politically active and present, but it also allows people to record their stories and perspectives. With these devices, we got a clear picture of what really happened with Renee Good and Alex Pretti, which was a story very different from the tale that the US government claimed. The presence of technology in the world today creates a burden of accountability on the government and forces them to make decisions knowing that they can not always cover it up afterwards.
Question: You co-sponsored the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would provide a path to legal status for undocumented farmworkers while strengthening employee verification. The legislation passed the House in 2021 but never received a Senate vote. Is that something you are currently working on or looking into?
JP: “So it was a way in which we were able to provide legalization for those who have worked in agriculture, continued to work in agriculture, and then stayed here to work in agriculture, giving them that pathway to citizenship. As well as adjusting some of the pay and laws surrounding farmworkers, not just those who are here domestically, but also those who are brought in through the H-2A program, to make that a little more accessible. Because, as we’ve seen, the domestic workforce for agriculture is drinking and aging, and therefore, look, the reality is, we’re going to have to continue to bring people in to do those jobs no American will do. So that is what the FWMA focused on, and I’m proud that it was one of the only bills in the last couple of decades to pass the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis.”
I explained what the FWMA was last week. But as a short review, the Farm Workers Modernization Act, or the FWMA, is an act that provided undocumented immigrants who had two or more years of agricultural service with a Certified Agricultural Worker (or CAW) status, a status that was valid for five years, renewable, covered the entire family, and included built-in incentives for farmworker housing. The bill did not make it to the Senate, but it raises awareness for the harsh treatment of immigrants and the need for actions to support the communities that are helping develop and sustain our agricultural community.
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 not only Monterey County’s agricultural reform, but also the general workforce?
JP: “Like I said, with the shrinking workforce that we’re seeing, the technology is important to replace, not labor; that’s not what we want to do; it’s going to replace the lack of labor. So we need to continue to invest in tech, but at the same time, continue to protect those who are here willing to do that type of work by ensuring that they are here not only in a law-abiding fashion, but here in a legal fashion, and that they and their families, considering their contribution, that they brought and will continue to bring, not just to our AG industry, but also to our community. “
Congressman Panetta makes a great point here. The shrinking workforce is and has continued to be a growing problem, one that we noted in Week 4. The agricultural community has only increased in its immigrant workforce as a response to the shrinking one in the US. Furthermore, as I’ve mentioned quite a few times before, the H-2A permits require evidence of no US workers capable and willing to fill the job, and considering the extensive amounts of H-2A permits approved for Monterey County, we are free to believe that there is enough evidence that we are losing our local workforce ourselves, and that immigrant labor is really only a result of that, not a cause. He mentioned earlier in his response that the kinds of produce grown in Monterey County and Salinas are difficult to use technology to help collect, as they require specialized recognition and skills that technology has not yet developed. So, improving technology can help mitigate the negative economic effects of these immigration policies on the agricultural production of these farms. However, he also points out that it is pertinent to focus on actions we can take now, protecting the immigrants who are currently working to help with the agricultural process. By highlighting the rights they have and ensuring that they are protected under the law, we can continue to maintain that productivity and create a healthier and stronger economy despite the federal government’s actions.
So what solutions did we get from Congressman Panetta? He has offered a lot of information that I think is valuable in coming up with some ideas that could help heal and balance the negative impacts of immigration policy from a wide variety of lenses.
Economic:
From an economic perspective, the best methods of mitigation are focused on informing the communities of their rights and to work on improving technology. Both of these are crucial parts of making sure that the work continues to be productive and that these businesses and farms are able to run despite the lowering immigration rates. The only issue with promoting the development of technology in theses sectors is that it does not resolve the main issue people have with immigrants, which is the fear of immigrants taking their jobs. As technology develops, it replaces humans altogether, regardless of status, meaning that there will be no increase in job opportunities for citizens.
Social:
From Congressman Panetta’s perspective, there are atleast two things the community should do to help balance out the issues currently being faced. For one, activism groups and other places should continue advocating and bringing awareness to these issues and the harmful impacts they have. They should continue to advocate for rights to be honored by ICE and CBP, as well as any other regulatory institution, and ensure that these immigrants are well aware of the rights they have as humans. In addition to this, it is important that people keep up that presence and awareness in the world. Having people continue to be active advocates, not just to the extent of those such as Renee Good and Alex Pretti, but to be aware of actions going on around them and the injustices that these actions are causing. Having people pick up their phones and record incidents, to go onto platforms and tell their story, and to inform the country about the situations they face is an important process to not only bringing awareness, but giving a platform for people to speak out against these injustices and fight against government actions in a peaceful and lawful manner.
JP: “Because people did what they do best, and that is participate, and put themselves, not in a violent fashion, not threatening officers or ICE or CBP agents, that’s not what we want, that’s not what we’re asking. We’re just asking them to be present and do what they can, and document, and hold accountable these officers if they’re going to act in this deadly fashion.”
Political:
In terms of political actions, Congressman Panetta makes it clear that it is the combines job of local, state, and federal government to protect the rights of these immigrants, and that when one section fails to do so, that the others must pick up in their place. He points out that the current government needs to work on immigration reform that will provide aid and give these communities the stability and aid they need to stay here legally, whether it be through the Farm Workers Modernization Act, or through other platforms.
JP: “And so, I think we need to continue to work on immigration reform, we need to continue to reassure those who are here that they have the protections in place, and that they know that they have the confidence knowing that our community is behind them and for them, and that we’ll do everything we can to protect them as much as we can within the law, and to ensure that they are not harassed in an illegal fashion by ICE and CBP officers, who are acting well beyond their protocol and procedures of proper law enforcement.”
I would like to give a special thanks to Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Ms. Alyssa Garcia Marquez, 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.
With that, I leave you for next week’s post. Over the next week, I’ll be meeting and talking with Senator John Laird and getting to know more about the extensive political impacts of these policies.
That’s all for now, and see you next week.
Week 8: Interview with John Laird (Pt 1)
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. If you were here last week, you’ll remember that I was going through my interview with Jimmy Panetta, where we discussed a bit about the fear that builds up in these communities, and how exactly the government has added to these fears rather than reducing them. Well, following this, I got the opportunity to talk to Senator John Laird, who represents the 17th Congressional District. Senator Laird has been an activist for pro-immigration movements, highlighting the rights of all immigrants regardless of status. But I’ll also let him introduce himself and a bit about his work, as he did in our interview.
JL: “ I represent the 17th Senate district, and the 17th Senate district is all of Santa Cruz and Monterey, and most of San Luis Obispo County, and there is a very high agricultural presence in this district, and so I try to be attuned to what the issues are there, and recently, we’ve had most of the challenges there coming from the federal government, and the federal administration.”
Now that he’s been mostly introduced, here are a few of the immigration policies and reforms he has worked on in the last few years.
- Stop ICE Probation Ruse: The ICE Probation Ruse is a tactic where ICE agents represent themselves as probation officers and claim they are conducting a probation check, or reference a person's probation status, to get someone to open their door or come outside. This petition voted to prohibit ICE agents from relying on and exploiting probation statuses to gain access to homes. John Laird voted for this policy, which passed with bipartisan support.
- Know Your Rights Program: I mentioned this in Week 5 about social movements, but as a reminder, the Know Your Rights program is a program that helps immigrants of all statuses learn their rights as humans in the country, providing materials and holding workshops to help promote safety and protection across areas such as Monterey County with heavy immigration populations. Not only is Senator Laird an advocate of this program, but he also maintains a dedicated “Know Your Rights” page on his website through which immigrants can get access to resources, including legal aid, through organizations like the UFW Foundation.
Alright then, now that we’ve been introduced to Senator Laird, from both me and him, let’s hear what he has to say. Like the last interview, I’ll input parts of the transcript, and then pause for explanations.
JL: “The state doesn’t have the total power to administer immigration programs, but we are left holding the results of what happens with the law and central programs. So while we don’t control immigration, we can control certain laws and budget allocations that respond to what’s going on at the federal. The one specific thing I would mention is that after the new administration took office, we appropriated money for different groups, to legal challenges, and to protect their interests. And that is one of the ways we’ve really tried to have a state response to what’s going on on a federal level, because we know that if you affect the immigration status of agricultural workers, we could have crops rotting in the field, and that is not something anybody wants, regardless of what their political perspective is.”
Senator Laird actually discusses one of the issues that brought me to this topic in the first place. When I was first introduced to this project idea, hearing about how thousands of dollars of income for farmers were going to waste due to a lack of workforce was a piece of shocking news. Furthermore, with the significant role agriculture plays in the livelihood and prosperity of our country, being so important that it was considered an essential critical infrastructure during COVID-19, the impacts of thousands of dollars in food shortages would have been high for the average American. Considering President Trump’s persistence on the use of American-grown produce, whether it be the promotion of “Product of U.S.A” packaging or the expansion of trade markets for American produce, it becomes paradoxical to create a policy that so negatively influences the agricultural industry. In addition to this, Senator Laird points out that, while the State can not control or override federal immigration policy, it can create policies and take action in response, with policies such as the Stop ICE Probation Ruse, or a variety of actions, like promoting the now Your Rights foundation on their websites. These actions stand out as support towards immigrants, and provide them the security and trust that, while the federal government may not be supporting, the state government does what it can to assist.
Question: Especially in California, which is a pretty Democratic state, we’ve taken a lot of aggressive stances on limiting our cooperation to see how we can make sure to limit how much we engage with them. So, how do you think that plays out specifically in the workforce shortage or the vulnerability of the farmworkers in Salinas and Monterey County?
JL: "The real difficult situation is that if people feel at risk, they are at risk, they’re going to change their habits. There’s nothing wrong, and it can be seen in the latest school district, where the attendance has been down at certain points because people don’t feel safe bringing their kids to school or going to school. We see it in people who might be available to do agricultural work; there are impacts in the healthcare system, because people are worried, and in certain services, might not be paid for if you’re on an undocumented status. And so, we’re finding that, and there have been times when ICE or federal immigration has taken actions. And each of these crises tries to catch people who they think are not in legal status, and it affects the delivery of every single one of those services."
What Senator Laird is talking about here is one of the crucial arguments of the anti-ICE and anti-immigration movement. When immigration enforcement negatively contributes to the livelihood of communities and the economic stability and sustainability of an entire industry, it actually negates the original intended effect. The primary motivators for supporting strict immigration policies were to leave work and space for American citizens to find jobs. However, when immigrants stop showing up, and instead of finding people to fit into those positions, the industry just finds itself shutting down with a gaping lack of eager workforce. This just proves that these workers aren’t “stealing jobs” or taking away space from citizens’ employment, but simply filling a role unwilling to be done by the American public.
JL: “That leads to a state response of different laws that say ICE can’t stay in certain places, that ICE can’t intervene in certain situations, that there might be healthcare or schools or other things, and it’s one of those things where our power is limited because it is the federal power that’s instilling this. But at the state level, it’s our state’s services and local services, businesses, and economy that are impacted by this. And it is our obligation and our right to push back in a way that people can feel safe, that doesn’t disrupt the house, and that doesn’t disrupt their education, food deliveries, or ecosystem. And this is a challenge we are trying to battle at the state level.”
Here, Senator Laird points out some different ways in which the state can actually make a difference, mainly focusing on how the state can create legislation that can help push back these negative effects and increase the sense of safety and security that these communities feel. Following this, I ask him about these policies.
Question: So, kind of going back to what you said, there is a way you’re trying to mitigate it on the state level. Are there any bills that are at work that, obviously, if you can talk about them, that are moving through Sacramento that maybe you are working on or supporting that are helping address the agricultural labor shortage?
JL: “There are bills that have been enacted and signed, and there are some that have been voted through. I mentioned the legal services, there’s a children immigration project that the Budget Act allocated money for to make sure that social and legal services are given to unaccompanied minors who are sometimes created unaccompanied by the immigration enforcement actions. There are bills requiring the attorney general to model the policies, and there are bills showing that immigration officers can not enter into the non-public areas of the school site without a valid judicial warrant. There’s a bill that the state shall provide legal counsel to every immigrant youth as defined. Sometimes the bill will go towards funding. There’s a bill about governing boards and school districts, county offices of education, and chartered schools, to notify parents and school staff when immigration enforcement is confirmed at a school site. And there are actually about 10 or 15 more, some of which have been enacted.”
Alright, let’s go through all these bills.
- AB 1261: The policy Senator Laird refers to as the Budget Act, is actually a portion called AB 1261. California AB 1261, signed into law in October 2025, requires the state to provide free legal counsel to unaccompanied undocumented minors in California, including children who became separated from their parents due to immigration enforcement actions like ICE detentions or deportations.
- California Values Act: The act Senator Laird refers to following AB 1261 is the California Values Act, an act that prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to investigate, detain, or arrest people solely based on their immigration status or to help federal immigration enforcement operations, preventing local and state law enforcement from assisting with the detainment of immigrants.
- California Safe Haven School Act: This act establishes schools as protected spaces where immigration enforcement actions are restricted, ensuring students and families can access education without fear. The law makes clear that immigration officers cannot enter non-public areas of a school campus, such as classrooms, hallways, and administrative offices, without a valid judicial warrant, distinguishing between the type of warrant signed by a judge versus an administrative warrant that ICE agents can issue themselves.
- Senate Bill 98: Also known as the SAFE Act, this bill requires governing boards of school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to have clear protocols in place for responding to immigration enforcement activity near or at school sites. Specifically, it mandates that schools notify parents and staff when immigration enforcement has been confirmed at a school site, ensuring families have timely information to make decisions about their children's safety and attendance.
While Senator Laird also mentions a variety of other bills that are enacted, these, I believe, showcase the importance the state of California is putting on using state policy to help communities feel safe and seen, as he mentioned above. Through this, they continue to support the community instead of federal organizations and create a safer environment that can help facilitate an increase in workforce and restoration of economic sustainability in the agricultural field.
With that, I’ll leave you, yet again, in suspense until next week. We’ll continue to the second half of this interview and learn more about what the community and government can do to support the agricultural industry.
That’s all for this week, see you next time!
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/
Week 10: Solutions
Hi! Welcome back to my blog. This week, we’re going to look into possible solutions I’ve come up with to mitigate the negative impacts that we’ve discussed throughout this project.
Solution 1: Policy Making:
The legislative proposals, from the California Values Act to the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, both mentioned in Week 6, demonstrate that policy reform is a firm and structurally viable pathway to addressing immigration challenges facing Monterey County’s agricultural sector, if it is pushed forward and passed. Each bill, whether enacted at the state or federal level, reflects the recognition of the shortcomings of the current system’s immigration policy and protections. It demonstrates that the current system has and continues to produce outcomes that are not only damaging to immigrant workers but also harm the agricultural economy and negatively impact the public health infrastructures and civic institutions that continue to be reliant on a stable and protected workforce. When policy reform has been implemented, like with SB 54 and its limitation on local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agencies, research has shown reductions in the chilling effects, and encourages workers to access essential services and advocate for themselves. The Immigrant Witness and Victim Protection Act does the same, creating a policy and system that supports the community while inhibiting violence and crime, and in doing so, protects the entire system. This demonstrates that well-designed legislation can meaningfully alter the behavior and fear of the immigrant communities and promote a more connected and communicative environment. Hence, a continuous push for action by the government and strong advocacy will be effective in establishing policy reform.
The development of policies that follow the current path of legalization would also be effective. Policies that focus on creating legalization systems, similar to the Blue Card Bill that we mentioned in Week 6, would be beneficial in two ways. For one, the promotion of these bills would benefit the workforce by allowing them to continue to stay here on a new documented status. This would then promote economic stability as the workforce stops declining, people lose fear, and begin to go back to work. With both an economic and social benefit to the communities, the promotion and creation of bills that support these efforts are effective in mitigating the fear and economic downturn of the agricultural industry at the moment. Furthermore, policies that help improve the current H-2A program would be beneficial in promoting the legalization without special statuses. The existing H-2A visa program has been widely criticized by both employers and workers as too costly, too bureaucratic, and too restrictive. Policy reforms that streamline the application process, extend visa durations, allow year-round authorization, and expand worker protections could provide a more functional legal channel for agricultural labor without requiring broader immigration reform.
At the same time, the history of federal legislative efforts in this area underscores that policy solutions are only effective when they are enacted, implemented, and protected from reversal. The repeated failure of bipartisan agricultural labor bills to clear the Senate, combined with the ongoing tension between state and federal authority over immigration enforcement, demonstrates that the path from policy proposal to reform is not necessarily linear. Communities like Monterey County require a framework that supports legal stability for workers, provides a reliable labor access for employers, and strengthens the connection between the government and its constituents. Until such a framework exists, state-level measures and local political advocacy will continue to serve as partial and incomplete substitutes for the comprehensive federal reform that the situation demands.
Solution 2: Social Activism
The history of immigration reform in the United States demonstrates that policy change is often driven by activism from organized communities, advocacy organizations, and social movements that raise awareness as to the desires of the people and promote policy and political activism. In Monterey County, where the farmworker population plays such a prominent role in the economy, advocacy continues to remain a driving force for institutional reform and policy development. Whether it be the United Farm Workers movement or the current advocacy by protests and walk-outs, the community’s constant activism is an indicator to politicians of the necessity for government intervention. Organizations such as the Watsonville Law Center have continued to make their stances clear and inform the public. These actions are extremely effective, not only in highlighting the issue and informing the immigrant population, but also in catching the attention of politicians. The press conference convened by Monterey County officials and agricultural industry leaders in 2025, which brought together supervisors, mayors, sheriffs, healthcare officials, and labor leaders to publicly oppose federal enforcement tactics, is itself an example of how organized community advocacy can translate into visible political pressure. When conducting interviews with both Congressman Jimmy Panetta and Senator John Laird, a common theme was their appreciation and recognition of the efforts made by the activists to bring attention to the major issues. Both of them mentioned how the protests and community responses actually helped them gauge what needed to be done, if anything, and to what extent action needs to be taken in order to help alleviate these problems. Such action is dependent on the vocalness and the continued effort from these communities, making social activism a vital part of the solution.
Senator Laird 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. 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 Renée Good, which I’ve explained a few times in Weeks 6 and 8, 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. It is important, especially in this context, that people keep up that presence and awareness in the world. Having people continue to be active advocates, not just to the extent of those such as Renée Good and Alex Pretti, but to be aware of actions going on around them and the injustices that these actions are causing, can make all the difference in results. Having people pick up their phones and record incidents, to go onto platforms and tell their story, and to inform the country about the situations they face, is an important process to not only bring awareness, but also gives a platform for people to speak out against these injustices and fight against government actions peacefully and lawfully.
I believe these two solutions would be extremely effective in mitigating the negative impacts of immigration policy. Of course, as I mentioned, these solutions come with their own problems, but looking at the solutions holistically, it seems like the best situation overall.
That’s all for this week. I’ll see you next week!
Week 11: Reflections
Hi! Welcome to the final blog post of this project. With this final post, I’d like to take a moment to thank all the people who helped make this project a reality.
First and foremost, I’d like to thank Dr. Parson. From helping me develop this project into a full-fledged idea to helping me with resources, project review, and answering any questions I had, Dr. Parson’s aid was a crucial part of the success of this project. I’d like to also thank Dr. Panda, my external mentor. She was extremely helpful in reviewing my project and helping in preparation for interviews. Finally, I’d like to thank Mr. Hansen. Those long conversations about contacts and the extensive list of resources were also a huge help when I started reaching out to people for interviews.
Finally, I’d like to thank Senator John Laird and Congressman Jimmy Panetta for their invaluable guidance on policy changes and social activism within the community. I would also like to thank Ms. Alyssa Garcia Marquez, Ms. Khalida Sarwari, and the teams behind Senator Laird and Congressman Panetta for their assistance and resources.
In times like this, it’s important to be aware of the world we’re in and the issues that are currently present. While my project focused on a very specific industry in one county, it really reflects a broader nationwide issue: the discrepancies between the federal government’s choices and constituents' needs and opinions. It is important to remain present and aware of national issues, and to continue to step up and advocate for the beliefs you hold and the communities they support. If there’s anything you should take away from this project is to be aware, be in the moment, and continue to step up and speak for those whose voices continue to be oppressed. I’ve left a few links for some organizations in Monterey County working to preserve the rights of these communities, if you want to show your support.
Thank you all for coming with me on this journey.
That’s all for this week. Archita signing out.
Cisne, M. (2025). Monterey Cisne. Montereycisne.org. https://www.montereycisne.org/
Solidarity Network Monterey County Response. (2025). Solidarity Network Monterey County Response. https://montereycountyrrn.org/en/
Watsonville Law Center. (2026, February 10). Watsonville Law Center. https://www.watsonvillelawcenter.org/