Missouri’s food economy runs on undocumented labor. Turning a blind eye won’t work anymore.
In meatpacking plants across Missouri, hundreds of workers clock in before dawn, keeping one of the state’s most essential industries up and running. Many of them are Latino immigrants, some undocumented, who have become the invisible backbone of Missouri’s $93.7 billion agriculture economy. They’re the ones who process the pork and clean the poultry that end up on our dinner tables.
This reality isn’t unique to Missouri. It’s mirrored in agricultural communities across the country, where immigrant workers form the foundation of our food system.
Meatpacking is grueling, dangerous work. With injury rates three times the national average, hazards like amputations, high-speed production lines, and constant repetitive motions that can cause musculoskeletal issues are daily realities while on the floor. Workers must face long hours in cold, loud environments, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with little break time and limited, if any, access to personal protective equipment (PPE). These working conditions declined during the COVID pandemic and remain demanding today.
And in spite of the risks, undocumented laborers continue to make up a substantial portion of the workforce; about 23% of workers are undocumented, and 42% are foreign-born in this sector.
The U.S. is criminalizing the very people keeping it fed. Immigration crackdowns don’t just break up families; they break supply chains. That means meatpacking plants losing essential workers, farms going understaffed, and local economies potentially being pushed to the brink.
The meatpacking industry has a long history of worker exploitation, though.
Meatpacking plants were first built in large cities where workers had better access to unions and collective bargaining. However, new companies began relocating to rural areas, where union presence was weaker and labor costs were lower, effectively moving the industry away from its unionized roots.
With the move to rural areas, plants recruited Latin American immigrants to fulfill the low-wage, demanding jobs that native-born workers were less willing to do.
Even though undocumented workers pay taxes and significantly contribute to the nation’s economy, they still lack labor protection in U.S. labor laws. They live every day among escalated anti-immigrant rhetoric and threats of deportations and family separations hanging over their heads.
These workers are not transient, but rather embedded in the communities they help sustain. In fact, most undocumented immigrants in America have lived here for more than a decade.
Relying on a workforce without legal protections is an unsustainable and flawed model for employers and workers.
Mass deportations would weaken the economy, and the consequences would ripple across our food system. Unharvested crops, higher food prices for consumers, and reduced domestic food production can follow major labor shortages.
“You would see farms go out of business, and we could see interruption in our food supply,” testified American Farm Bureau Federation president Zippy Duvall before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this year.
This country and its people must find both a just and effective path forward for those who have repeatedly contributed to and are so vitally part of our success.
This raises the question: How do we protect those who maintain our food system while they remain increasingly vulnerable?
It is essential to recognize the role of H-2A visas in meeting agricultural labor needs. These visas enable foreign nationals to obtain temporary work permits for agricultural jobs when local workers are unavailable.
This system provides some assistance, but it also has its own financial and administrative barriers: its complex paperwork and high costs limit accessibility, especially for smaller farms. Simplifying the process, reducing expenses, and expanding the program to cover year-round positions would better meet the needs of farmers.
Visas fall far short of addressing the deeper, structural issues behind the agricultural workforce crisis. What’s needed is reform that builds a stable, sustainable, and humane labor system for the future of American agriculture.
Comprehensive immigration and labor reform is a long-term, politically complex process and goal.
In the meantime, we must focus on practical, community-based solutions.
One such approach is to invest in bilingual outreach and support networks that can advocate for workers. Partnerships like these should be expanded and permanently funded, not just in crisis moments throughout states.
In Missouri, the Migrant Farmworkers Assistance Fund (MFAF) provides essential bilingual case management and emergency assistance to migrant farmworkers and their families. The nonprofit’s staff meet with migrant workers upon their arrival at local orchards to help determine eligibility for public benefits, access medical and dental services, and assist with school enrollment for their children.
Monarch Immigrant Services, based in St. Louis, plays a vital role in promoting equity and stability for these groups as well. By providing mental health services, social support, legal assistance, language services, and senior engagement to over 3,000 individuals, they’re effectively working to invest in immigrant and refugee communities through equitable access to transformative services.
Local solutions can – and do – provide immediate relief. These services not only keep workers uplifted, but they also help them remain stable and resilient.
Another potential step is the adoption of fair labor certification programs that hold employers accountable and provide consumers with a means to support ethical practices, according to Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
For example, the Equitable Food Initiative (EFI) works with farms to certify that produce is grown under safe, fair, and dignified conditions. Participating operations have the opportunity to integrate worker voice, foster collaboration between managers and workers, and recognize the value of all staff.
It's important to recognize that many migrant workers endure abuse and exploitation out of fear of deportation.
Groups like Centro de los Derechos del Migrante (CDM), a transnational organization aiding Mexico-based migrant workers in the U.S., assist migrant workers in confronting these injustices. Ensuring that labor migration policies reflect workers’ voices and priorities, CDM collaborates with workers to transform the power imbalances that harm people in the H-2A and other temporary work visa programs.
Promoting equitable practices in local agriculture and raising awareness about available resources can help safeguard the well-being of these essential community members. We must realize that protecting them is a shared responsibility.
It’s up to us to speak out for those who are too often silenced, even if, at times, it feels like our messages empty into an abyss. We cannot continue to accept the labor of undocumented workers while treating them as disposable. We cannot have a witch hunt and a workforce at the same time.
As someone whose community was once welcomed and rebuilt after war, I believe in this country’s ability to honor the dignity of all workers, regardless of status. We owe it to the people who feed us every day. They deserve more than fear and invisibility. They deserve protection, recognition, and a seat at the table.
Know your rights during recruitment and at work. Learn how to protect your rights and issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment, expenses and reimbursements, and fair wages.
Workers can also share their experiences and review their recruiters and employers to prevent recruitment workplace abuses at contratados.org.
For help with workplace or recruitment problems, contact Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM). CDM can assess your situation, recommend the best course of action, and accompany your case throughout the process. CDM never charges workers for services.
U.S.: (667) 217-5738 | Mexico: 55-96-61-6771
Layla Halilbasic is an incoming junior at Webster University in St. Louis and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.























image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.