immigration – Public Policy Institute of California

How the Pandemic Has Disrupted Food Chains

The COVID-19 health emergency has changed what we eat and where we eat it. We talked with Dave Puglia, president and CEO of Western Growers (which represents family farms growing fresh produce) and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center advisory council, about how these changes are affecting California’s agricultural sector.

PPIC: How has the pandemic affected food supply chains?

DAVE PUGLIA: The pandemic shut down the food service sector—restaurants, schools and universities, hotels—so suddenly and completely that it just blew up supply chains. This caused many farmers to divert their produce from food service outlets to retail markets. That added more confusion to the food chain, as certain commodity prices dropped like a stone due to oversupply, while some other crops did quite well, fueled by people buying more produce that is less perishable. Foods like carrots, onions, and potatoes have been flying off the shelves.

Those first few weeks were incredibly damaging to American agriculture, and particularly the fresh produce industry. California’s desert region was in full swing for harvesting when the shutdowns began. I watched one of my members plow 350 acres of romaine lettuce into the ground. A lot of fresh produce made it to food banks—our members doubled the amount they usually ship to them—but we saw some food banks wave off perishable fresh produce, which requires adequate cold storage space and must be distributed quickly. For growers, transportation was an added cost.

We’re not out of the woods yet. The food service sector is still largely shut down. California’s coastal farms are now starting to harvest. They had to project a month ago how much crop to plant without knowing if restaurants will be open, half open, or still closed. And for those with permanent crops—table grapes, nuts, and stone fruits—their crops are coming. They’ll have to make these same tough decisions about whether it pencils out to pay for the labor, shipping, and cooling costs to harvest their crop. To put it in perspective, harvesting—which includes labor and energy—comprises about half the costs to produce, say, an acre of lettuce.

Farming has always been a risky business, but this has created an impossible guessing game for growers in fresh produce.

PPIC: What can be done to help get more farm products to emergency food programs?

DP: The top priority is to inject capital into the food system now. Ideally, the federal government would increase food purchases so we can deliver more produce to food banks and organizations that serve people in need. The CARES Act began to fund this, but the amount was small—$600 million over six months, across the whole country. That won’t buy a lot of food. The quickest way to help is to dramatically increase funding to this program.

At the state level, increasing the tax credit for food going to food banks could help. Currently, California has a 15% tax credit on the value of produce that the state’s farmers deliver to food banks. Clearly, the state needs every tax dollar it can get, but if we’re trying to keep farmers going so they can continue to grow our food and support the economy, that would be a good way to help.

PPIC: What further steps would mitigate the damage?

DP: The immediate need is for the federal government to expand its agricultural relief package in the CARES Act. The caps on the relief package were not practical for fresh produce, dairy, and cattle. Growers got $125,000 per farmer, which was appreciated—but it’s a very small amount given the losses for the higher value crops, which cost more to produce. For example, a farmer growing romaine lettuce spends about $10,000 per acre. The average-sized lettuce farm is 225 acres; the relief package covered losses for about 12.5 acres of that. Strawberries cost roughly $50,000 per acre to produce; the relief package covered just 2.5 acres of lost production on the average 55-acre farm.

The state has been helpful in crafting practical guidance for continued operation of our farms, which helped the industry implement distancing very quickly. We have a big challenge there, as these folks work and live in close quarters. It was also very helpful that the governor acted quickly on our request to help farmworkers with emergency childcare. These are mostly families where both parents work and don’t have the option of a parent staying home with the kids.

Going forward, I hope that coming out of this crisis we don’t see a raft of new regulatory costs. The cost of doing business in California is already quite high. If the cost of farming here compared to Mexico or Arizona gets much higher, it will incentivize more farmers to relocate.

PPIC: What changes to California agriculture do you envision coming out of this crisis?

DP: Farmers are amazingly adaptive people, and I’m encouraged by the many California farms that are finding new, more efficient ways of operating and producing food because of this crisis.

Will there be fewer restaurants in two years’ time, or will Americans have returned to their previous habits of eating out? No one knows. But growers will adapt to changing demand, and they’ll respond very quickly.

Food Security in a Time of COVID-19 Insecurity: How the Virus Affects Farming

How will the COVID-19 pandemic affect California’s agricultural sector—which is important for food supplies locally, nationally, and in many other countries? We talked to Cannon Michael—a sixth-generation farmer and member of the PPIC Water Policy Center Advisory Council—about the pandemic’s potential to disrupt farming.

PPIC: What risks does the virus bring to California’s farm sector?

CANNON MICHAEL: For most farmers, the immediate focus is on our workers—not only keeping them safe from the virus, but also being mindful of the pressures they’re facing at home right now. Most of our workers can’t work from home. Many have kids out of school or partners who’ve lost their jobs.

The big concern going forward is the virus going through our workforce. The disruptions of food supply we’re seeing in stores right now is caused by changes in buying habits and difficulty keeping shelves stocked. But if there’s disruption on farms—if crops don’t get harvested in time or the logistics for getting food to market go down, that would be much scarier. We’re already facing labor uncertainty due to changes to a visa program that allows workers from Mexico and Central America to come here for seasonal farm work. Many of California’s larger farms rely heavily on this temporary labor force. In the early days of the crisis, the H-2A visa program was restricted so that only workers already in the program last year were allowed to come back this year. Rule changes and congestion have made getting across the border harder, too. We’re seeing a slowdown of workers at a time when we may need more. That’s a real concern for the food supply.

There’s a finite pool of people living here to do the hand work required on the state’s farms. There’s a risk that the large companies will do whatever it takes to get those folks if they can’t get seasonal laborers. It could be a threat to smaller farms if larger entities start to pull workers away using incentives that smaller farms can’t match.

The disruption of markets—such as the closure of restaurants and food service operations—is a huge concern for growers. Impacts will vary by region, commodity, and individual company exposure. Western Growers reports that some farmers are heavily embedded in the food service supply chain with crops in the ground now. They have nowhere to put that food, because other growers with retail channels for those commodities are operating at maximum capacity and can’t take any more product into their systems. Other farmers say they may need to scale back acreage. Some crops could be affected by changing international markets or the general financial downturn. There’s the potential for huge swings in marketability and profitability for many farmers.

We’re also not sure if there will be any new requirements for food safety in coming months. There are already good protocols in place for food safety that anyone involved in fresh produce has to comply with, and farmers are accustomed to these high standards. The good news is that food safety experts say there is a low risk of getting the virus from food products or packaging. The advice from the experts is that normal food safety practices will suffice.

PPIC: What steps are being taken to protect farm workers from infection?

CM: We are rapidly approaching the time when most farms will be extremely busy, which means a lot of people on the farm. New state guidance on protecting farmworkers from COVID-19 is being developed. But most farmworkers live in very close conditions and so even with safe practices on the farm, it’s going to be harder to control the risk in their homes and communities under current conditions. If the virus gets into the farmworker population I think we’d see a very fast rise in infection, which would have a dramatic impact on the farm sector and food supply.

On our farm we’re providing regularly updated health information in all the places that people congregate. The California Farm Bureau and industry groups have reacted quickly to make information available in English and Spanish. We’re making sanitation equipment widely available, and presenting guidelines on hand washing and social distancing.

PPIC: What policy changes could help address these risks?

CM: Fixing federal immigration policy is critical. The key point is we need to get food off the farms, and to do that we have to have enough laborers. One hopeful sign is that the federal government recently announced it will relax the new restrictions on the H-2A program. That should help people get here to work.

It’s also critical that rural communities aren’t forgotten in this public health crisis. We need a plan to address the special public health challenges in farm communities.

I don’t want to pound people over the head with this, but the crisis really drives home the importance of agriculture and the value of a stable food supply.

And I’d just like to encourage everyone to reduce the panic buying, which has created big challenges in the supply chain as well as making it harder for more vulnerable people who can’t shop that way. We will produce the food and get it to the markets but we will all be safer if people just buy what they need.

California’s Population Slowdown

The decennial census is fast approaching. Starting this Thursday, March 12, most households in the country will be sent an invitation to fill out a census form online. Over the next several months, the US Census Bureau will prod those who have not responded to make sure they are counted. The count will have important implications for political representation, federal funding, and a wide range of research.

Thanks to yearly estimates from both the Census Bureau and our state’s Department of Finance, we already know a lot about how the state population has changed, even before the census count begins. The latest numbers suggest a marked slowdown since the early 2010s. The California Department of Finance estimates annual growth of just 0.35% in 2018 and 2019, down from nearly 1% from 2010 through 2012.

California is now a net loser in overall migration—that is, migration to and from both other states and other countries—for the first time since the Great Recession. The state has long experienced net losses in domestic migration—it has had net gains in only 3 of the past 30 years—but the losses have risen from 116,000 in 2017 to 198,000 in 2019.

International migration used to make up for domestic losses, but it has also slumped in recent years. The California Department of Finance estimates that net immigration from other countries has dropped from a gain of 217,000 in 2017 to a gain of 181,000 in 2019. The US Census Bureau reports an even bigger drop in international migration, enough for a total population estimate that is 447,000 people smaller than the one from the Department of Finance.

California’s population is also getting older, and the state’s young adults are having fewer children. Natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—has been falling since the early 1990s. It remained above 280,000 each year from 1991 to 2010, but since 2015 it has fallen from 247,000 to just 181,000. This decline mostly comes from a downward trend in births. In 2019, California had 11.3 births for every 1,000 residents, its lowest rate in well over a century.

Natural increase is essential to understanding California’s future. Net migration may rebound, as it has in the past. But the state’s birth and death trends indicate that California’s population will grow slowly for years to come.

Video: A Conversation with Leon Panetta

Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense and CIA director, joined PPIC president Mark Baldassare in Sacramento last week for a wide-ranging conversation about leadership. Baldassare began by asking Panetta to “put on your CIA hat” and compare the targeting of Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration with the recent killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. The main difference, Panetta said, is that bin Laden had directly attacked the United States, and that he and other Al-Qaeda leaders were almost certainly planning more attacks.

Panetta explained that the Obama administration “never seriously considered an attack on Soleimani,” because “the result would be that we would increase the chances of war with Iran.” The issue was not whether Soleimani was a “bad actor,” but whether the US wanted to escalate the conflict: “When you make those kinds of decisions, you ought to damn well consider the risks of war.”

For Panetta, the tense situation with Iran underlines the importance of leadership. “In a democracy we govern either by leadership or by crisis.” Leadership, he continued, involves actively addressing major challenges—and this, in turn, entails uncertainty and risk. “If you’re not willing to take the risks associated with leadership . . . , crisis will drive policy in this country.”

Panetta sees impeachment as “a reflection of our times”—we have “a president who doesn’t abide by moral boundaries” and a Congress that “can’t work together.” But he is hopeful that the Senate will deal with the trial “in a fair and impartial way.” Otherwise, he continued, “there is a danger that impeachment is going to become just another political tool.”

Asked to assess how things are going in California, Panetta identified three interrelated leadership challenges: political imbalance, economic inequality, and education. To have a chance of restoring political balance in Sacramento, he said, Republicans are “going to have to look at immigration . . . inequality . . . climate change.” At the same time, the state’s Democratic leadership will have to collaborate with a broad range of stakeholders to tackle economic inequality—and its efforts will need to include a focus on education, which “is absolutely critical to the future of California.”

While Panetta is clearly worried about the level of dysfunction in Washington, he is not entirely pessimistic. “I’ve seen Washington at its best and Washington at its worst. The good news is that I’ve seen Washington work!” More seriously, he stressed the need for people to engage in the political process: “They’ve gotta be willing to fight for what they believe is right.” He conceded that politics “has gotten tougher.” But, he added, the great satisfaction of being involved in our democracy is that “you can do things to make people’s lives better.”

The Democratic Presidential Primary: What Do Californians Care About?

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, participated in a panel on election issues at the Pacific Chapter of the American Association of Public Opinion Research meeting on December 6, 2019 in San Francisco. This post is excerpted from his prepared remarks.

Californians are turning their attention to the March 3 Super Tuesday primary as they play a new role in deciding the next Democratic presidential nominee. This is unfamiliar territory for California’s Democratic primary voters, who have become accustomed to casting ballots in June after other states have already determined the winner of their party’s presidential sweepstakes.

The 2019 PPIC surveys have consistently identified three frontrunners—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren—with no clear favorite. At the same time, likely voters have signaled an openness to considering alternatives. In this context, the debates loom large, and eight in ten likely voters in the September PPIC survey say they are important (41% very, 43% somewhat) in deciding their vote.

What do California’s Democratic primary likely voters most want to hear from the candidates as the stage is being set for a December 19 Democratic debate in Los Angeles? In an open-ended question in the November PPIC survey, the top four issues mentioned are health care (21%), the environment (14%), jobs and the economy (13%), and immigration (12%). Several other issues—such as education, homelessness, housing affordability, gun control, crime, and taxes—are each mentioned by less than one in ten likely voters.

Across demographic groups, likely voters differ on the issues that matter the most. For instance, voters age 45 and older want to hear about health care more often than younger voters do (26% to 13%), while Latinos want to hear about immigration more often than whites do (24% to 5%), and whites want to hear about the environment more often than Latinos do (23% to 4%). Jobs and the economy is the only top issue generating a similar amount of interest across age, education, gender, income, race/ethnic, and regional groups.

The issues of greatest concern also vary according to candidate preference. Biden’s supporters name health care more often (25%), Warren’s supporters mention the environment more often (26%), and Sander’s supporters name immigration more often (22%). By contrast, supporters of the three leading candidates are similarly likely to mention jobs and the economy (13% Sanders, 11% Biden, 7% Warren).

One area of strong consensus? Views of President Trump. In the November PPIC survey, 91% of California Democratic primary likely voters say they disapprove of President Trump and 84% support his impeachment and removal from office.

When asked what’s more important, nominating a candidate who seems most likely to defeat Trump or one whose positions on issues are closest to theirs, 55% want to defeat Trump, while 36% want alignment on positions. Since the May PPIC survey, support for impeachment (65% to 84%) and the importance of nominating an electable candidate (48% to 55%) has risen.

Those who say that electability is most important, compared with those who say policy positions are most important, are more likely to mention health care (25% to 15%) and less likely to name immigration (7% to 18%) as the issue that they most want to hear about in the presidential debates. We find no differences between these two voter groups in the mention of the environment or jobs and the economy. Interestingly, education (11% to 2%) is noted more often among those who say that alignment on the issues is more important to them.

The Los Angeles debate is the next big opportunity for the presidential candidates to connect with California voters whose preferences are still being formed. Many Democratic primary likely voters already report that they are closely following the election news, but the debate could still result in an expanded electorate—and a scrambling of the race—if candidates connect with voters on issues that matter the most to them.

Throughout 2020, PPIC surveys will be monitoring what is likely to be an historic year for voter participation, as Californians engage in a consequential primary and a highly anticipated general election.

Proposition 187 and a Changing California

Twenty-five years ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, 59% of Californians voted to pass Proposition 187. The landmark ballot measure sought to set up a state-run immigration system and deny most public benefits—including K–12 education—to undocumented immigrants. The measure was later found to be unconstitutional, but its impact was pivotal in transforming California into what it is today.

Most Californians now support policies to protect undocumented immigrants. A recent PPIC survey found 61% of Californians and 54% of likely voters are in favor of state and local governments making their own policies and taking actions, separate from the federal government, to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants. In addition, our April survey found 57% of Californians (54% likely voters) support public school districts designating themselves “sanctuary safe zones” to indicate they will protect undocumented students and their families from federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Californians’ overall views toward immigrants have also shifted. The PPIC Statewide Survey has monitored this issue since 1998. In April 1998, Californians were divided: 46% viewed immigrants as a benefit to California because of their hard work and job skills, while 42% viewed immigrants as a burden because they use public services. Since then, the share of Californians viewing immigrants positively has increased 25 points (71% benefit, 22% burden).

Across age groups and regions, the perception that immigrants are a benefit has risen by more than 20 points. Positive perceptions are also up across racial/ethnic groups, by 27 points among African Americans, 20 points among Latinos, 18 points among whites, and 12 points among Asian Americans. The share of Democrats viewing immigrants positively has increased 37 points, while the share of Republicans holding this view has decreased 2 points.

In recent years, Californians have supported policies to improve the lives of immigrants, such as providing health care for young undocumented Californians, taking state and local actions to protect immigrants, and supporting a pathway to citizenship. What role will immigration play in the upcoming election? Stay tuned to the PPIC Statewide Survey as we continue to examine Californians’ view of immigrants.

Skills-based Immigration and California’s Workforce

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The White House recently issued a summary of an immigration plan that would shift the nation’s largely family-based immigration system toward a skills-based approach that would probably prioritize immigrants with higher levels of formal education. Given that the education levels of new immigrants are already on the rise, what impact might a skills-based system have on in California, the state with the largest immigrant population?

The proposed new system would increase the percentage of skills-based legal immigrants from 12% to 57%, leaving the total number of immigrants at 1.1 million per year.

In recent years, about two-thirds of immigrants with lawful permanent residence status (or “Green Cards”) have been admitted to the US through family-based preferences. The proposed new system would reduce this by half, to 33%. The White House statement emphasizes that priority would still be given to immediate family members of both US citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Past PPIC research suggests that family-preference immigrants have historically been high- and low-skilled. And California’s economy relies on immigrants at both ends of the educational spectrum. Nearly a third of the state’s working-age immigrants lack a high school diploma, and they make up a large portion of the workforce in industries requiring less formal education. However, the foreign-born now constitute 31% of California workers who have at least a BA, and they are overrepresented in high-skill industries like technology and health care.

Recent PPIC research finds that new immigrants in California are increasingly well-educated. In 2017, a slight majority (52%) of the state’s working-age immigrants with fewer than five years in the US had a bachelor’s or graduate degree, compared to only 22% in 1990. Only 17% had not graduated from high school, down from 47% in 1990. Indeed, recently arrived immigrants are more likely than US-born Californians to have college or graduate degrees.

It is impossible to know exactly how a skills-based immigration system would affect California. But given the trend toward higher education levels among new immigrants and state economy’s reliance on both high- and low-skilled workers, a shift toward such a system might not be necessary to meet California’s workforce needs.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Californians’ Views of Immigration Policy—Now and Then

From building a border wall to declaring a crisis at the border, immigration policy proposals from the Trump Administration continue to provoke controversy and stir national debate. How do Californians—who live with the nation’s highest share of immigrants—view such proposals? And more broadly, how have their views of immigration policy changed over time?

When it comes to a border wall, Californians’ views are decidedly different than those of adults nationwide. Fewer than three in ten Californians (28%) supported building a wall along the entire border with Mexico in our January survey, but twice as many American adults (56%) were in favor of this proposal in a January CNN survey.

However, the wall is a highly partisan issue in California. Support among California Republicans is quite notable, with 76% in favor. Among other partisans—and across regions and demographic groups—support fails to eclipse 40%.

There’s more agreement between Californians and other Americans regarding the situation at the border. Relatively few Californians in our January survey or adults nationwide in a January ABC/Washington Post survey call the situation at the US-Mexico border a “crisis” (27% California, 24% nationwide).

Again, there are stark partisan differences over this topic in California. Republicans (58%) are far more likely than Democrats (14%) and independents (28%) to call the border situation a crisis. Across regions and demographic groups, one in three—or fewer—say this.

Californians’ views of immigration policy have changed a great deal since the passage of Proposition 187 nearly 25 years ago. Supported by 58% of the vote, Prop 187 sought to make undocumented immigrants ineligible for public benefits. Blocked by a federal judge, the measure was never enforced.

Today, 58% of Californians support California’s state and local governments in making their own policies and taking their own actions—separate from the federal government—to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California.

Not only have Californians’ views of immigration policy changed over time, so have their perceptions of immigrants. While state residents have generally held positive views of immigrants, in recent years these perceptions have become much more positive.

Since the PPIC Statewide Survey last talked to Californians, President Trump has declared a national emergency as he seeks funds to build the wall, while California—along with other states—has sued the federal government over this claim. As California and the Trump Administration continue to spar over immigration policy, stay tuned while we track Californians’ perceptions and policy preferences related to this issue.

Video: A Conversation with California’s Legislative Leadership

When Toni Atkins, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate, sat down to talk with PPIC president Mark Baldassare last week, she brought along a list of pressing issues. Asked to name the top two issues facing the state, she led off with housing: “The growing crisis around the lack of housing supply for all levels of Californians is one of our most critical issues.” Next came climate change and its effects across California. And then she added a third issue: water sustainability. In reality, she said, “there is always a list of issues and challenges that we are working on in California.”

Despite this long list, Atkins was optimistic about the legislature’s chances of working productively with Governor Newsom. “It’s early, but I would say that what I appreciate and enjoy about Governor Newsom is he really is a policy wonk at heart.” She added that while Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom share many priorities, the two have very different styles. “Jerry Brown proposed a budget and he only wanted a few things,” while Governor Newsom “has thrown everything out there.”

After noting that it will be interesting to see how the legislature approaches this year’s budget process, Atkins highlighted the governor’s focus on homelessness and mental health issues and his commitment to early childhood education—which, she added, has been “a huge driving issue for the legislative women’s caucus.” She expressed particular interest in the governor’s proposal to “take juvenile justice offenders out of CDCR—the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation—and into more of a health/social services arena.”

Shifting from the state budget process to the ongoing drama over the budget—and border wall—at the federal level, Baldassare asked Atkins about the state government’s response to what is happening in Washington, DC. “You know, I’m so glad to be in California,” she replied. Citing the state’s diversity and the policies that foster it, she said that “to have that attacked in many ways at the federal level means all of a sudden you’ve got California really promoting state’s rights, to protect our policies, our values, and things that we hold dear.”

Atkins tended to be optimistic about even the thorniest issues—such as forestry management, building more housing, and water sustainability. Speaking about the cluster of issues related to climate change, she said, “Maybe the result of these catastrophic fires, and floods, and mudslides—maybe that is the way we’re now able to have a conversation we couldn’t have five years ago, before it was a crisis.” But she added that in order to move an agenda forward, “you’ve got to still have all the stakeholders at the table.”

More generally, Atkins stressed the importance of representing all Californians, regardless of party: “I think we have work to do together.”

Video: 2020 Census: ¿Por qué es tan importante el censo?

El censo decenal juega un papel muy clave en la democracia estadounidense. Es bastante lo que está en juego para California—y el año 2020 se acerca rápidamente.

En este video grabado en español, Joe Hayes, investigador de PPIC, explica la importancia del censo del año 2020, y comenta sobre la propuesta de incluir una pregunta sobre la ciudadanía.

Vea más videos en esta serie.

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. The stakes are huge for California—and 2020 is fast approaching.

In this Spanish-language video, PPIC researcher Joe Hayes explains the importance of the 2020 Census and discusses the proposed citizenship question.

View more videos in this series.

An English transcript of the video is available here.