Vulnerability of Migrant Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic


Migrant workers are vulnerable at all times, however the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these vulnerabilities. The recent outbreaks amongst works on farms and greenhouses has placed a spotlight on the issues of migrant worker health and safety (CBC News 2020, Guthrie 2020). News stories about the conditions of migrant labourers have increased exponentially from pre-pandemic levels, especially those focused on why agriculture has become the new centre of COVID-19 in Canada.

Migrant workers are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 due to their overcrowded on-farm housing conditions, their dependence on their employers for continued legal employment and re-entry next season, and their lack of access to healthcare. The framing of the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) means that migrant workers rely on their employers for housing, transportation, and their continued stay in Canada. Their housing is often extremely cramped with little privacy or space for workers (Mojtehedzadeh 2020). These bunkhouses are also infrequently inspected by government authorities and are only inspected before the migrant workers arrive (Mojtehedzadeh 2020). In addition to cramped housing, migrant workers also have limited access to healthcare in Canada. Their transportation is entirely reliant on their employers – many of whom are restricting workers movement during the pandemic – and there is a significant delay between their arriving in Canada and their receiving a Canadian health card. All of these issues underscore how dependent migrant labourers are on their employers under SAWP. Since workers’ stay in Canada is contingent on their employment, if they lose their job they could be deported. This puts them in a dangerous position that limits their ability to speak out against their working and living conditions, even if their employers are in violation of COVID-19 regulations.

Setting aside all the issues that await them in Canada, COVID-19 has also presented challenges for migrant workers in reaching Canada. The pandemic’s escalation in March led to restricted borders and flights around the world. Workers’ ability to travel to Canada has varied widely by country. Some workers were forced to sign waivers before they were allowed to leave their home country, while others were not allowed to leave at all (Migrant Workers Alliance for Change 2020). Travel complications also arose out of the closure of many embassies and consulates. Many workers in Mexico had to reapply for visas, at considerable cost and loss of time (Richter, Williams, and Skerrit 2020). These delays all result in lost income for migrant labourers.

COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, but migrant labourers are without many of the protections that other Canadian workers have. Their and dependence on their employers for housing, access to healthcare, and access to basic information about their rights means that they are often unable to protect themselves from exploitation and the public health crisis caused by COVID-19.  Complications arising from travelling during a pandemic have also resulted in lost income. The outbreaks on farms and greenhouses have highlighted the plight of migrant workers and it behooves us to examine why they are so vulnerable.


Works Cited:


(2020, June 11).  Montérégie farm struggles to contain COVID outbreak among migrant workers.  CBC NewsRetrieved from

Guthrie, J.  (2020, May 27).  COVID-19 outbreak at Ontario farm highlights deep problems in Canada’s seasonal agricultural worker program.  Rabble.  Retrieved from

Migrant Workers Alliance for Change (2020).  Unheeded Warning: COVID-19 & Migrant Workers in Canada.  Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.  Retrieved from

Mojtehedzadeh, S.  (2020, May 11).  A study urged better standards for migrant workers’ housing.  Nothing was done.  Now COVID-19 has struck.  The Star.  Retrieved from

Richter, J., Wadhams, N., & Skerritt, J.  (2020, March 18).  ‘There Won’t Be Anyone to Harvest the Crops.’  Coronavirus Travel Bans Squeeze Migrant Labour.  Time.  Retrieved from

Strategies for Academic Solidarity: Responding to the Muslim Ban

On Friday, January 27, 2017, the President of the United States, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order halting all refugee admissions for 120 days and suspending entry to the United States for both immigrants and visitors from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for 90 days, during which immigration processes would be reviewed and altered. This order, known to many as the Muslim Ban, came into immediate effect with little explanation of protocol, trapping people on either side of the border and others within the liminal space of airports. While the ban has been temporarily overturned and continues to be fought in the courts, the initial impact has already had devastating effects and many refuse to take the risk to travel to the United States in this climate of uncertainty.

In light of the ban, many in the academic community – individual academics, departments and several institutions – quickly spoke out condemning the ban. As a research collective, we at FEAST also want to explicitly state our opposition to this racist, discriminatory policy and the rhetoric of hatred and fear that it both utilizes and promotes. Considering that thousands of scholars are unable to enter the United States due to this ban, and many more Muslim and racialized scholars feel unsafe doing so due to fear of being similarly targeted or harassed, we have discussed both amongst ourselves and in larger forums what the appropriate action for academics on either side of the border should be, and how best to oppose this exclusionary policy and support those immediately affected.

An early suggestion in these discussions was an academic boycott. The United States is host to many important academic conferences that serve as a key forum for discussing ideas, collaborating and building connections within and between disciplines. If many scholars were going to be shut out as a result of these policies, then perhaps these discussions should not take place without them. As geographers who had planned to attend the annual conference of the American Association of Geographers (AAG) in April, this question is the subject of continuing debates in our department, but also within our research group.

In particular, we felt that the official statement released by the AAG was weak in comparison to those of other academic societies, and also its commitment in relation to those “affected” by the ban somewhat lacking in detail.

A boycott and withdrawal of academic labour is an important show of solidarity with those who have no choice in the matter. Done collectively, it also sends a clear message that business is not as usual and that there is widespread opposition to acts that affect our academic community. This kind of action can also be effective in spurring change, whether in the form of reallocation of funds or the creation of satellite meetings organized in alternative locations that allow for full participation for those excluded.

However, withdrawing from academic conferences also means that those voices are not present, and some argue that the sharing of critical academic work is even more important in an increasingly hostile political environment. By attending a conference, the opportunity exists for physical disruption and taking up of space, both inside the conference and in collaboration with activists and organizers in place.

Nonetheless, the risk remains that once in attendance, resistance will be reduced to a cursory acknowledgement of the ban and nothing more. These points are not easily tallied and each academic weighing this decision has different positionality and different stakes – personal and professional obligations vary, and not everyone stands to lose the same amount.  Finally, as has been pointed out before, this ban represents a new version of a long standing policy of hostile borders and exclusionary migration practices in the United States and elsewhere. Well before this ban, Muslim and racialized people have encountered discrimination and barriers to entry that are legal, bureaucratic, and financial. So while scholars may be definitively banned from attending conferences at this time, there are many who point out that attendance was never truly an option. How can a response address more than this particular moment, but fight these injustices more globally?

The students and faculty of the University of Toronto’s Geography and Planning department drafted  a statement to the AAG calling for specific actions that should be taken to improve upon their earlier stance, but also to make fundamental changes to the association over a longer time scale. The statement has been shared widely and currently has over 600 signatures from academics all over the world, both by those planning to boycott and those who plan to attend.

As members of FEAST, we agree with this call for action and have decided at this time to move forward with our planned sessions, understanding that there will be gaps in the program as some of our participants opt not to attend. However, we intend to use our time at the AAG (including some of our session time) to highlight how this is not a business-as-usual conference. We also intend to find ways to organize on the ground to make sure that those who are not attending are not forgotten. We believe that the AAG should be taking the necessary steps to reimburse funds to all those who are affected by the ban, not only those who hold a passport from one of the seven countries, but all those who due to personal convictions or unwillingness to submit to harassment are also unable to attend.

In this situation, we do not see the decision to boycott or the decision to attend and organize as existing in opposition to each other, but rather as varied strategies that each have a place in this struggle. There are different ways to be in solidarity with those affected and each person, perspective, and situation will warrant a different strategy. There is a clear need for meaningful long term change within the AAG. In one of the demands, the statement mentioned above also calls for the AAG to, “ support Indigenous sovereignty and social, racial, and environmental justice.” We maintain that this kind of systemic change requires multifaceted approaches from a range of actors. Resistance is not uniform, but if we continue to read the work of those who are directly affected, listen to the voices of those who are marginalized and follow the lead of the communities that are already organizing, it can be unified.