Abstract
This case study of the 2019 Farm Workforce Modernization Act explains how immigration policy is framed and how compromise is generated among legislators and interest groups with conflicting goals. This research relies on a content analysis of publicly available primary documents dating from 2019 to 2020, and a qualitative survey of 20 farmworker advocates. We argue that three overarching frames defined the policy problem and thus shaped policy proposals: (1) exploitative working conditions, (2) access to cheap labor, and (3) the rule of law. Further, we identified emotional appeals that buttressed each frame, consisting of ethics, agricultural exceptionalism, and the undeserving/deserving binary. Our analysis also reveals the Faustian bargains of members of the policy network and opposition from groups in the wider policy community. Though the FWMA did not reach the Senate floor, an analysis of how the policy problem was defined and how debate was framed offers insights into the process of policymaking around the polarizing issues of immigration and labor, while building on the scholarship on immigration frames, agricultural exceptionalism, and the role of emotions in framing.