Labor Demands and Hiring Practices of Southern Cattle-Dairy Farmers Under H-2A Program’s Current Guidelines and Proposed Modifications

The following are among this project’s research outputs during the no-cost extension period:

Academic Journal Articles, M.S. Graduate Thesis, and Outreach/Research Publications

• Bhuiyan, N.I., Emmanuel, J., & Escalante, C.L. (Accepted). Are H-2A Workers Always More Expensive to Hire Than Domestic Labor. Choices, forthcoming.
• Escalante, C.L. R. Yewande, S. Ghimire, and E.G. Fonsah (2025). “Profit Margin Squeeze When H-2A Labor Becomes More Expensive.” Choices, Issue 40, Quarter 4.
• Gutierrez-Li, A., C.L. Escalante, and S. Neupane. (2025). “Where are the Workers? A Look at the Labor Needs of Livestock Farmers.” Choices. Issue 40, Quarter 4.
• Peña-Lévano, L., S. Burney, J. Salfer, J. Clark, L. Garcia Covarrubias and C. Escalante. (2025). "Automated Milking Systems: A Case Study of a U.S. Midwest Dairy Farm Decision-Making Process." Applied Economics Teaching Resources, Volume 7, Issue 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.71162/aetr.652617.
• Zhang, J. and G. Melo. (2026). “Does Administration Mode Affect Survey Outcomes
• Among Hard-to-Reach Populations? An Intercept Survey
• with Beef Cattle Farmers.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 1–20
• doi:10.1017/aae.2026.10040.
• Bhuiyan, N. (2025). “Structural, Industry, and Policy Determinants of U.S. Livestock Farms’ Reduced Dependence on H-2A Foreign Farm Workers.” Master’s Thesis submitted to the Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia
• Gutierrez-Li, A.  Breaking Down the Deportation Strategy: A Look at Policies, Costs, and Potential Consequences.  Choices. February 2026.
• Gutierrez-Li, A. and J. Rubalcaba. The Effects of Ongoing Internal Immigration Enforcement on the U.S. Agricultural Labor Supply. Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. September 2025.
• Gutierrez-Li, A. The Unseen Workforce: How Immigration Enforcement Could Shake the U.S. Economy Choices. July 2025.
• Gutierrez-Li, A., Melo, G., Burney, S., Escalante, C., & Acharya, S. R. (2024). Automatic Milking Systems: Labor-Savings Route or Costly Gamble for Dairy Farmers? Choices, Issue 39 Quarter 4(39)
• Gallardo, K., A. Gutiérrez-Li, J. Luckstead, R. M. Nayga Jr., B. Sallato, and W. Yang. “H-2A Workers’ Preferences for Job Attributes: Evidence from an Experiment.” Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. September

Details on Research Results and Discussion:

1. MS Thesis

Summary:

This thesis investigates the determinants of H-2A labor demand across U.S. agriculture, with a novel focus on livestock farms. While crop and nursery operations have rapidly adopted the H-2A program, livestock farms have shown limited participation. Using panel data from 2020 to 2023 across all 50 states, this research estimates sector-specific random effects models to explore structural, industry, and policy-related factors affecting H-2A labor intensity. Results reveal significant drivers in the crop sector such as crop composition, nursery wages, and national H-2A demand while livestock demand remains weakly associated with most variables.  These results suggest potential mismatches in program design and labor needs. Robustness checks, including time fixed effects and pooled OLS comparisons, support the main findings. The study underscores the need for reforms like year-round H-2A eligibility under the Farm Workforce Modernization Act to enhance program utility for livestock farms and promote long-term labor sustainability in U.S. agriculture.

Results Discussion:

The model’s dependent variable, Livestock_H2A_Intensity, is measured as the ratio of certified H-2A livestock workers to total employment in the NAICS 112 livestock sector. On average, H-2A intensity in livestock production is notably lower than in crop production, with a mean of 0.157. However, the wide standard deviation (0.637) and maximum value (5.054) suggest that some states have substantial H-2A reliance, while others report no usage.

Sectoral composition is represented by variables derived from the value of farm production and cash receipts. Animal_Product_Share, the share of total farm output attributable to animal and animal product production has a mean of 0.42, indicating that livestock is a dominant component in many states. Within animal production, Dairy_Share (mean = 0.226) and Meat_Share (mean = 0.382) reflect the relative importance of dairy and meat products, with high variability across regions. Some states are heavily specialized, as shown by maximum shares exceeding 0.8 for dairy and 0.9 for meat.

Employment variables constructed from BLS NAICS data provide insight into labor distribution within the agricultural sector. Livestock_Labor_Share, defined as NAICS 112 employment over total agricultural employment (NAICS 11), averages 30.3%. Sub-sector measures such as Cattle_Labor_Share and Dairy_Labor_Share show diverse employment patterns, with some states exhibiting significant cattle or dairy-specific labor intensity.

Structural labor market indicators Ag_Goods_Share and Ag_Total_Share are included to contextualize the role of agriculture in the broader economy. As in the crop model, agriculture typically contributes modestly to state employment, with Ag_Total_Share averaging just 1%.

Relative wage metrics offer a picture of competitiveness in the livestock labor market. The Livestock_Wage_Relative, calculated as the ratio of wages in the NAICS 112 sector to the AEWR, has a mean of 1.472, suggesting that wages in livestock often exceed the prevailing H-2A wage threshold. Cattle_Wage_Relative is somewhat lower (mean = 1.274), but still consistently above 1 in most cases. These ratios indicate that many livestock employers pay above the federally mandated AEWR, which may reduce their incentive to hire H-2A workers.

The AEWR itself is included in three relative forms: AEWR_All_Sectors, AEWR_Goods_Sectors and AEWR_Ag_Sector to control for the variation in wage floors across different segments of the economy. The AEWR relative to agriculture (AEWR_Ag_Sector) shows the highest average at 0.686, underscoring its stronger influence within agricultural labor markets.

Finally, National_H2A_Demand, a macro-level control defined as total certified H-2A workers over national agricultural employment, has a mean of 0.342. This variable reflects the broader labor market environment in which state-level H-2A hiring decisions are made and captures annual changes in nationwide demand pressures.

Livestock Model’s Regression Results

The livestock sector model examines the determinants of certified H-2A labor intensity across U.S. states. The model includes 14 explanatory variables and 4 regional dummies. The R-squared value is 0.3655 and the adjusted R-squared is 0.3024, indicating moderate explanatory power. The model’s F-statistic of 104.28 confirms its overall statistical significance.

Most explanatory variables in the model do not exhibit statistically significant relationships with livestock H-2A labor intensity at conventional levels. Among the structural variables, AEWR_All_Sectors, is marginally significant at the 10% level, with a positive coefficient of 2.3613 (p ≈ 0.05). AEWR_Goods_Sectors, has a negative coefficient of –3.5136 and is also marginally significant (p ≈ 0.07).

The variable National_H2A_Demand, which reflects the national ratio of certified H-2A workers to total agricultural employment (NAICS 11), has a positive coefficient of 1.0545, though it is not statistically significant at the 10% level (p = 0.1148). None of the sectoral composition variables show significant effects on livestock H-2A intensity.

Likewise, labor structure indicators such as Ag_Goods_Share, Ag_Total_Share do not exhibit statistically meaningful relationships. Measures of sub-sector specialization within livestock, including Livestock_Wage_Relative and Cattle_Wage_Relative, also yield insignificant coefficients. Regional dummy variables do not show significant associations with H-2A labor intensity in the livestock sector either.

In summary, while the livestock model is statistically valid overall, few individual predictors reach conventional significance levels. The marginal significance of AEWR_All_Sectors and AEWR_Goods_Sectors suggests that broader structural employment conditions may play a modest role in shaping H-2A labor usage in the livestock sector, but further evidence is needed to confirm these effects.

2. Choice Experiment Results (Base)

Summary:

We conducted an intercept survey with beef cattle farmers using paper and electronic modes to examine administration mode effects. Three outcomes were measured: (1) preferences for H-2A reforms using a discrete choice experiment, (2) responses to closed-ended questions regarding labor, and (3) survey process measures such as completion time and respondent experiences. Results show that closed-ended responses and utility scales were comparable across modes, while mean preference estimates differed. Respondents in the paper mode spent more time, paid closer attention, and reported higher satisfaction. We recommend the paper mode for complex instruments that require greater participant engagement.

Beef cattle farmers’ labor dynamics and preferences for H-2A reforms

We find that beef cattle farmers have substantial demand for hired labor to perform both traditional on-farm agricultural tasks and a variety of off-farm activities. Overall, these farmers report confidence in future profitability and plans for production expansion. However, nearly half have already experienced labor difficulties, which may intensify in the future. This highlights a potential role for the H-2A program in alleviating labor shortages in the livestock sector.

By comparing beef cattle farmers’ labor demand and hiring practices with current H-2A regulations, we identify two major misalignments that may limit program adoption. First, most beef cattle operations rely on well-scheduled, year-round labor, which is incompatible with the H-2A program’s seasonal employment requirement. Second, the required AEWR is considerably higher than the wages typically paid by beef cattle farmers, making participation financially challenging.

Results from the DCE analysis show that wage levels and the flexibility to assign workers to off farm tasks are consistently valued by farmers. This finding aligns with prior studies showing that farmers prioritize cost and production practice considerations in farm operations (Mugnier, Husson, and Cournut, 2021). In contrast, attributes reflecting other proposed reforms, such as allowing year-round employment and establishing a portable H-2A program, were not consistently valued. This limited support may reflect information gaps, as many beef cattle farmers have limited familiarity with the H-2A program and are hesitant to rely on it for year-round labor in core production activities that are vulnerable to disruption. In addition, the regulatory complexity and administrative burden associated with year-round employment may be perceived as higher compliance costs and risks, thereby deterring participation among generally risk-averse farmers (Zhang and Melo, 2025).

These findings yield several policy implications for improving H-2A program accessibility for beef cattle farmers. First, our results support efforts to relax restrictions on year-round employment and to allow greater flexibility in assigning workers to off-farm tasks, which would better align the program with livestock production practices. Second, while the high wage requirement remains a major barrier to adoption, adjustments to the AEWR calculation or policies that limit its growth could improve alignment with industry conditions. Finally, communication and outreach related to the H-2A program can be strengthened across agricultural sectors to improve farmers’ understanding of program rules and ongoing reform efforts, thereby fostering broader support for policy initiatives.

3. Choice Experiment Findings (Extensions)

Summary: 

Survey evidence shows that U.S. beef cattle farmers’ labor demand does not align with current H-2A rules. Major barriers include the seasonal and full-time employment requirements, high wage mandate, and lengthy applications. Program reforms addressing these barriers could improve H-2A utilization and help mitigate agricultural labor shortage.

Discussion of Results: 

As expected, livestock operations exhibit labor profiles fundamentally differing from those of crop farms, being smaller in scale and requiring more year-round rather than seasonal labor (Bent 2011; Hertz and Zahniser 2013; Jafri et al. 2024). Moreover, notable differences also emerge within the livestock sector between beef cattle and dairy operations.

Dairy farms tend to employ a larger hired labor force. While 26% of beef cattle farmers reported not hiring any labor, this was true for only 9% of dairy farmers. A majority of beef cattle farms (65%) hired between one and five workers, while dairy farms were more likely to hire larger teams; 53% employed more than five workers, compared to just 9% of beef cattle farms. This likely reflects structural differences in herd size, as far fewer (6%) dairy farms have a herd size smaller than 100 compared to 56% of the beef cattle farms (USDA NASS, 2024).

Hired hours also indicate more intensive labor demands in dairy farms, whereas beef cattle farms tend to hire with greater flexibly. Sixty-two percent of dairy farms employed workers for more than 40 hours per week, compared to only 31% of beef cattle farms. This pattern aligns with previous findings that dairy farming typically requires more continuous and time-sensitive labor, often involving longer work schedules than other types of livestock operations  (Charlton and Taylor 2016; Charlton and Kostandini 2021; Jafri et al. 2024).

Wages paid also varied considerably across farm types, though the majority of both beef cattle and dairy farms reported paying below the H-2A required AEWR. At the time of the survey, the AEWR in Texas was $15.55 per hour. Two-thirds (67%) of beef cattle farms paid their workers $13 per hour or less, compared to only 29% of dairy farms in that wage bracket. Nearly half (45%) of dairy farms paid between $13.10 and $16.00 per hour, and 26% paid more than $16 per hour. On the other hand, only 11% of beef farms reported paying wages above $16 per hour.

Regarding labor scheduling, well-scheduled labor that typically lasts year-round was reported as the dominant need by both beef cattle (82%) and dairy (65%) farms. However, a substantial portion of both beef cattle (53%) and dairy (62%) farmers also reported demand for emergency or temporary labor, suggesting some alignment with H-2A eligibility under specific conditions.

Regarding the nature of tasks, the majority of hired labor was agricultural (on-farm tasks directly related to production) in both sectors, though this was more pronounced among dairy farms (88%) than beef cattle farms (72%). A larger share of beef cattle farms (28%) reported employing labor for non-agricultural tasks, such as local transportation or processing.

Overall, dairy farms tended to have larger labor forces, with longer hours, and paid at higher wages than beef cattle farms. In contrast, beef cattle farms typically had smaller labor demands, more part-time workers (under 40 hours per week), and lower wage offerings. While both groups fall within the scope of agricultural employment and have some labor needs that align with the seasonal or temporary criteria of the H-2A program, the majority of their labor demand centers on well-scheduled, year-round work that do not conform with and hence, could not be accommodated under the current current program rules.

Livestock Producers’ Perceptions and Barriers to Adoption

Concerning labor demand characteristics, we observe notable differences between responses from beef cattle and dairy farmers. Expectations about long-term profitability varied markedly between the two groups. A clear majority (66%) of beef cattle farmers expressed confidence in their farm’s profitability over the next ten years, compared to only 26% of dairy farmers. This disparity likely reflects structural differences and divergent prevailing market conditions. In recent years, beef producers have benefited from tight cattle supplies and strong demand, which have contributed to favorable price conditions and improved margins (NCBA, 2023; USDA–NASS, 2025). In contrast, dairy farmers continue to face persistent operating and marketing challenges, including high feed and labor costs, volatile milk prices, and increasing consolidation that places pressure on small and mid-sized operations (McDonald et al. 2020; Jafri et al. 2024).

Regarding past labor experiences, both groups reported widespread difficulties. When asked about labor issues encountered over the past five years, the most common concern cited was difficulty hiring domestic workers, reported by 48% of beef cattle farmers and 56% of dairy farmers. Challenges related to training and supervision were also common, noted by 46% of beef cattle farmers and 38% of dairy farmers. Retention problems were further highlighted by 31% of beef cattle farmers and 41% of dairy farmers. Only a small share of 19% beef cattle farmers and 29% dairy farmers reported experiencing no labor challenges.

Despite these challenges, stated likelihood of adopting the current H-2A program differed significantly across farm types. Only 5% of dairy farmers indicated they were likely to adopt, compared to 41% of beef cattle farmers. This divergence may reflect differences in labor demand characteristics: beef cattle farms often involve more seasonal tasks that better align with the program’s current eligibility requirements. In contrast, dairy operations require stable, year-round labor that is generally incompatible with H-2A regulations.

Among respondents who reported being unlikely or unsure about adopting the current H-2A program, perceived barriers varied by farm type. For dairy producers, the most frequently cited barrier (85%) was the requirement for seasonal employment, which conflicts with the sector’s year-round labor needs. Beef cattle producers, by contrast, reported a broader set of concerns, including the high wage requirement (45%), the lengthy application time (28%), and the ineligibility of non-agricultural labor tasks under H-2A (21%).

Interestingly, despite the low current adoption, both groups expressed strong interest in a reformed version of the program. A large majority of dairy producers (85%) and beef cattle producers (78%) indicated that they would benefit from a more flexible version of the H-2A program that better aligns with the labor needs of the livestock sector.

Livestock Farmers’ Stated Likelihood of H-2A Adoption

As expected, dairy farmers are significantly less likely than beef cattle farmers to consider adoption (p<0.05), which reflects the inherent incompatibility between existing H-2A program’s seasonal requirements and dairy farms’ year-round labor needs. Smaller farms also exhibit significantly lower likelihood of adoption (p<0.05), which could indicate these farms’ limited financial and business capacity to afford the more expensive H-2A labor hiring alternative and the absence of economies of scale needed to manage the program’s complexity.

Younger producers are significantly more likely to report willingness to adopt the program (p<0.01). However, due to a violation of the proportional odds assumption for this variable, the estimated effect may not be consistent across all response categories. Confidence in long-term farm profitability also emerges as a strong positive predictor of H-2A adoption likelihood (p<0.01), reinforcing previous findings that economic optimism enhances producers’ willingness to invest in labor expansion or regulatory compliance (Lin 1991; Foster and Rosenzweig 2010). Holding a college degree, however, has no statistically significant effect.

Among labor demand characteristic variables, producers who reported difficulty in finding workers are more likely to consider H-2A participation (p<0.10). However, other labor demand characteristics, such as hiring practices and labor scheduling, are not significant. One possible explanation is that impending shortages of available, willing and motivated domestic farm workers, along with broader farm characteristics and farmer demographics, rather than specific employment structures, serve as the primary drivers of interest in the H-2A program.

Discussion

Our findings confirm that livestock operations, compared to crop production, exhibit distinct labor profiles characterized by smaller workforce sizes and a strong reliance on year-round labor (USDA–ERS, 2025). Within the livestock sector, dairy farms tend to have larger labor forces, longer hours, and higher wages, while beef cattle farms report more flexible labor patterns. Across both groups, producers reported substantial labor challenges, yet most indicated that they were either unlikely or unsure about adopting the current H-2A program, consistent with national H-2A statistics (USDA, 2024).

We find that several characteristics are associated with producers’ stated likelihood of adoption. Beef cattle farmers whose operations involve more seasonal labor needs may have a higher stated likelihood of adopting the program than dairy farmers. Producers with larger herd sizes, confident in long-term profitability, and experienced difficulty hiring domestic labor also showed higher likelihood of adoption.

While the H-2A program’s core objective of facilitating agriculture employers’ access to foreign labor when domestic labor is unavailable remains relevant to livestock producers, our results reveal major barriers to adoption and suggest the need for policy reforms to address them.

4. Expounding on Survey Results

Summary:

This project’s multi-state survey of livestock farmers reveals their foreign labor demand, production costs and workforce plans differentiated from other industries. Even if dependence on H-2A labor is currently limited, H-2A is regarded as a standby labor source given farmers’ recommendations for program policy modifications that could increase their H-2A patronage.

Reliance on H-2A Labor

Livestock producers do not generally employ large numbers of H-2A workers, unlike specialty crop farmers. Those who do tend to mostly hire them directly, as only a few rely on external services like those of independent contractors, employer associations or the USDA. This pattern is not surprising, by virtue of the rules associated with the H-2A program. Under the government regulations, agricultural employers can only hire H-2A workers for performing seasonal tasks. Such provision does not negatively affect fruit and vegetable growers significantly, as they need most of their labor during harvest season. However, livestock production takes place every single day, leaving animal sector farmers out of H-2A labor for the most important production tasks. Nevertheless, farmers can still hire H-2A workers for seasonal work.

The few livestock farmers employing H-2A workers generally feel that the cost of accessing this kind of labor is substantial. Almost two thirds indicated that H-2A costs were either moderately burdensome (26.47%) or very burdensome (38.24%), while only 17.65% said they did not find them burdensome at all. This pattern aligns with cost perception of farmers in most industries, that is, that while the H-2A program effectively gives them access to a reliable workforce, the costs are high and growing, making the program prohibitive to most small and medium-size producers.

The earlier trends established (the low use of the H-2A program by livestock producers and the burdensome costs associated with it) are aspects that farmers would like the program to address. Our survey asked respondents to select among current H-2A provisions that they would like legislators to modify.

Among the program’s existing guidelines, the top provision that farmers would like to be prioritized in legislative amendments is for the government to set up subsidies to partially help farm employers in financing building and maintaining workers' living facilities required under the program. Under the current H-2A rules, employers must provide workers with transportation to and from their countries of origin to the U.S., as well as inside the country to and from the worksite and the living units. Moreover, employers shall furnish workers with housing and afford all the costs associated with this mandate.

Consistent with the H-2A program’s current incompatibility with the nature of the labor demand of livestock operations, our survey respondents’ choice for the second most urgent program modification was to create a yearly quota of H-2A workers just for non-seasonal sectors like dairy. Notably, this need was considered and addressed in the more recent versions of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which, despite gaining support at the Congress deliberations, eventually failed to clear the Senate (Congress.gov, 2021).

Contrary to expectations, only 6.5% of respondents prioritized the need to alter the determination process for H-2A workers' wages. This indicates that when labor cost considerations are weighed by farmers, there are more employers that consider housing costs as the more burdensome component of the H-2A remuneration package compared to the actual H-2A wage bill governed by the adverse effect wage rate (AEWR) provision.

Interestingly, the least selected change was to legalize the immigration status of the current undocumented farm labor force.  Farm producers apparently have a clear understanding of the real drivers of the farm labor sourcing problem.  A cursory view of the issue would quickly dismiss the issue as instigated primarily by racial or ethnicity considerations given the farm sector’s apparent primary dependence on foreign workers, especially those of Hispanic ethnicity.  Reality, however, presents the farm labor hiring predicament as not necessarily solely racially or ethnicity motivated, but rather an immigration identity issue.  Potential farm workers among immigrants would only commit to provide reliable, productive farm labor services if they are either undocumented or bounded by a labor contract, such as H-2A workers (Luo and Escalante, 2017).  When foreign residents (immigrants) successfully gain immigration status that provide them with flexibility to work anywhere in the country, they are more likely to choose better jobs outside the farm sector with more competitive salaries and wages, better working conditions (versus potential exposure to work hazards and health risks in farm work), and available fringe benefits (Escalante et al., 2016; Luo and Escalante, 2017; Escalante et al., 2019; Williams and Escalante, 2019).

General Labor Demand

While livestock farmers are hiring relatively fewer H-2A workers (likely a result of the program's rules that exclude non-seasonal activities), labor remains to be an important production input in their operations. Around 15% of the respondents indicated hiring documented workers (citizens or legal immigrants) and almost 14% reported employing undocumented individuals. The majority (85%) of the respondents, however, do not employ foreign workers of any kind. This trend indicates either the adequacy of family labor inputs among small businesses or the less labor-intensive nature of production operations that can be sufficiently manned by available American-born workers on their farms.

In addition to asking about their current situation (at the time of the survey), we asked farmers about their plans to hire foreign workers in the future. Most respondents (58.62%) plan to maintain the same number of workers and domestic-foreign manpower complement. This may suggest that the respondent farms intend to keep their operations at status quo levels and are not contemplating on future business expansions in the shorter-term horizon. Alternatively, they may already have enough American-born workers in their payroll or might be contemplating on the possibility of investing in labor-saving technologies. It is also worth nothing that close to 28% of producers indicated their indecision in hiring more foreign workers in the future, which could be a sign of some pervading concerns about uncertainty of business growth due to volatile economic episodes and their lack of confidence in their ability to pursue growth plans in the future.

Labor Costs

Wages are generally a major expense for most business owners. We asked respondents to provide the average wage paid to three types of workers. Of those hiring U.S. workers, more than 50% pay more than $13 dollars an hour, with more than 11% indicating paying more than $19 an hour. In the case of TN visa workers,^[1] while some livestock producers hire this kind of foreign labor, most respondents (about 88%) do not. The same holds for H-2A workers who are not usually relied much on in livestock farms as domestic workers.  As for H-2A workers who are actually hired by these farms, they are generally paid according to rates mandated under the program (i.e. at the AEWR levels set  by the government at the state level, which vary based on the tasks performed by individuals).

Labor costs represent less than 5% of total costs for a little bit less than half of the sample (46.86%). This suggests that livestock producers incur other expenses (such as expenditures on machinery, pesticides, and the animal themselves) that exceed their wage bill. Only 4.26% of respondents indicated that labor costs account for 26% or more of their total costs, which reflects the industry’s peculiar operating structure that is less labor dependent than other agricultural sectors.

In terms of labor costs, specifically hourly wages, farmers’ responses are mixed regarding their perceptions on wage trends in the past two years. While 41.39% of respondents asserted that wages have increased in this period, an almost similar proportion indicated no change (40.52%). Meanwhile, less than 1% have seen a decline in wages in the recent past. Such discrepancies in wage trend perceptions may be attributed to the different labor needs across operations based on their size. Alternatively, labor availability varies across regions in the U.S. as affected by several factors, which could result in some areas having to pay less for workers while others might be compelled to compete for labor in areas that offer more lucrative alternative employment alternatives in non-farm industries (like construction) or competing farm operations (such as specialty crop farms), thus forcing employers to make higher wage offers as they compete to recruit and retain workers.

[1] TN visas allow Mexican and Canadian citizens to work temporarily in the United States. The program grants highly skilled professionals with college degrees from around 60 occupations permission to work indefinitely in the U.S. if they have a job (offer) from an American employer (Payan and Rodriguez-Sanchez, 2023).