Search

Both the United States and Australia rely extensively on migrant farmworkers, specifically those without lawful working permits, to meet their labor demands. This excessive dependence sparks debate over the effectiveness of immigration policies in safeguarding access to, and the sustainability of, the agricultural workforce. It also raises human rights concerns as migrant farmworkers often face a myriad of dangers and injustices on the job. In particular, undocumented farmworkers remain largely marginalized and exploited, but they are not entitled to full rights under the law, and they are reluctant to speak up against abusive labor practices due to their immigration status and the fear of detention and deportation. This Article aims to identify feasible immigration solutions for the United States and Australia to strengthen their short-term and long-term agricultural workforce, and to uphold migrant farmworkers’ rights. Part II of the Article reveals migrant farmworkers’ silent struggle and discusses the importance of agricultural labor reform. Part III and Part IV compare the two immigration systems and their respective responses to the workforce and human rights issues associated with the use of migrant farmworkers. The comparison primarily focuses on the H-2A visa program and the 2021 agricultural labor bill in the United States, as well as the temporary visa schemes and the amnesty proposal in Australia. The Article acknowledges the merits of the two immigration systems, but argues that weaknesses prevail in some aspects. The United States and Australia should look at each other’s practices and re-align their immigration policies so that they both create effective immigration systems that ensure the short-term and long-term agricultural workforce, and protect migrant farmworkers’ human rights. A brief conclusion re-emphasizes the importance of agricultural labor reform and highlights remaining concerns regarding the reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Releasing sterile or incompatible male insects is a proven method of population management in agricultural systems with the potential to revolutionize mosquito control. Through a collaborative venture with the "Debug" Verily Life Sciences team, we assessed the incompatible insect technique (IIT) with the mosquito vector Aedes aegypti in northern Australia in a replicated treatment control field trial. Backcrossing a US strain of Ae. aegypti carrying Wolbachia wAlbB from Aedes albopictus with a local strain, we generated a wAlbB2-F4 strain incompatible with both the wild-type (no Wolbachia) and wMel-Wolbachia Ae. aegypti now extant in North Queensland. The wAlbB2-F4 strain was manually mass reared with males separated from females using Verily sex-sorting technologies to obtain no detectable female contamination in the field. With community consent, we delivered a total of three million IIT males into three isolated landscapes of over 200 houses each, releasing ~50 males per house three times a week over 20 wk. Detecting initial overflooding ratios of between 5:1 and 10:1, strong population declines well beyond 80% were detected across all treatment landscapes when compared to controls. Monitoring through the following season to observe the ongoing effect saw one treatment landscape devoid of adult Ae. aegypti early in the season. A second landscape showed reduced adults, and the third recovered fully. These encouraging results in suppressing both wild-type and wMel-Ae. aegypti confirms the utility of bidirectional incompatibility in the field setting, show the IIT to be robust, and indicate that the removal of this arbovirus vector from human-occupied landscapes may be achievable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]