Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of Amnesty?

This sentence from Iowa Representative Steve King's email makes you go WHAT?

The Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a 2007 report that even if farm wages were to rise by 40%, consumer spending on fresh fruit and vegetables would only be increased by a total of $8 per American per year.

Cong King is correct that we would be willing to pay an additional $8 a year on fresh fruit and vegetables if we could deport the illegals.  We will take it one step further to say the vast majority of American citizens would be more than willing to spend double that or more if we could send the illegals home. What the illegals are costing the Government in services they get for free is much more than $8 per year.

Not sure which Cabinet Secretary is the worst as they all seem to be vying for the bottom reaching into areas that should not concern them. It is beginning to look like amnesty for illegals is one of the major items this Administration is pushing? When the Agriculture Secretary Vilsack starts lying about the results of illegals being deported on the agriculture industry, then it looks like he is all about amnesty not helping the American farmer.

Is amnesty the way they plan to get more votes in 2012 for Obama? Do have one small question -- how can amnesty lead to illegals being eligible to vote or does Obama plan to give them citizenship at the same time? Last we knew amnesty and citizenship were not one in the same, but then this is the Obama Administration so who knows!

Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of Amnesty?

Congressman Steve King
Sept 10, 2010

If someone asks what the initials "USDA" stand for, most Iowans will automatically respond "United States Department of Agriculture." After all, Iowa has long prospered on the strength of its agricultural roots, and the United States Department of Agriculture has played a large role in the affairs of our state. Given recent events in Washington, however, it would be understandable if someone were to reply that "USDA" stood for "United States Department of Amnesty."

This is because the Obama administration has enlisted the Agriculture Department to help further its high-pressure, high-profile sales pitch for illegal immigrant amnesty. How else to explain the grossly erroneous claims Secretary Vilsack recently made to the Politico about the effect of illegal labor on food prices? This is what Secretary Vilsack told the paper, speaking of illegal immigrants:

"But, if you didn't have these folks, you would be spending a lot more- three, four or five times more, for food, or we would have to import food and have all the food security risks. Neither is what Americans want. What they want is what we have. Which is why we need comprehensive immigration reform." (Emphasis added).

His claim about food prices being "three, four, or five times more" without illegal immigrant labor is markedly false, and Secretary Vilsack should know better. In fact, I would encourage him to check with the Department he heads before he repeats this sales pitch to the public. Otherwise, he just might get accused of dishonest sales practices.

For clarification, here is what Secretary Vilsack's own Department of Agriculture has to say on the subject of illegal immigrant labor and food prices. Data compiled by the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that labor costs only represent six-percent of the price consumers pay for fresh fruits and vegetables, the market in which illegal immigrant labor is most prevalent.

If illegal alien labor accounts for only 6% of the total cost of fresh food, how could the absence of their labor possibly lead to food price spikes of 300%, 400%, or 500% as Secretary Vilsack claims? It couldn't. Secretary Vilsack simply isn't playing straight with you as he tries to sell you on "comprehensive immigration reform."

But suppose we were to give Secretary Vilsack and the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, and assume that illegal alien labor costs did play a more significant role in setting food prices. The Center for Immigration Studies concluded in a 2007 report that even if farm wages were to rise by 40%, consumer spending on fresh fruit and vegetables would only be increased by a total of $8 per American per year. This is hardly the doomsday scenario conjured up by Secretary Vilsack's misleading, pro-amnesty claims. In fact, many Americans would willingly pay an extra $8/year to enforce the immigration laws, knowing that doing so would result in savings many times greater in other areas of government.

Although Secretary Vilsack pretends to be speaking to "what Americans want", he is really just delivering a sales pitch on behalf of an immigration policy that continues to be overwhelmingly rejected by Americans. If he were truly interested in discussing "what Americans want", Secretary Vilsack would begin by discussing the need to increase border security, the need to fund the completion of a border fence, and the need to increase enforcement of the immigration laws that are already on the books.

The fact that he prefers to spin yarns about the price of produce tells you everything you need to know about what the Obama administration's priorities truly are. Americans should insist that the USDA get out of the business of amnesty and return to the business of agriculture.