That the offshore program has remained in place for decades and public outcry against it has been minimal is partly the achievement of a carefully spun discourse of foreign farm labor, as we saw in the previous chapter. In this chapter, I examine how this discourse makes use of several strategies. First, it situates the foreign migrant workers in the context of the familiar landscape of rural Ontario. Second, it frames the representation of offshore labor in dualisms of belonging and nonbelonging. Third, it associates various dualisms with different geographical scales. These scale-particular representations enable seemingly contradictory narratives to coexist. However, in the context of the wider discourse, geographical scales and associated dualisms interlock in a manner that situates seasonal migrant labor in subordinate economic and marginal social roles. It is still common among scholars to use essentialized ethnic categories to assess rural landscapes and examine social relationships in agricultural production. In view of such scholarly practices, it is particularly important to expose the ideological underpinnings of landscape representation. Geography has offered many approaches, associated with different traditions of scholarship, to the study of landscape. These approaches variously treat landscape as an expression of rural lifestyle, a manifestation of everyday social space, a material reflection of social relations, and an ideology. I assume the fourth perspective on landscape, which George L. Henderson (2003) also describes as “apocryphal” landscape because it reveals, not authentic social relations, but ideological ways of seeing. When Stephen Daniels and Denis Cosgrove (1988: 1) say, “A landscape is a cultural image,” they refer to the ideological representation of people and objects through landscape. According to this approach to landscape, the manner in which people are situated and represented in landscape can reveal ideologies of subordination and exclusion. For example, the portrayal of Gypsies as uncivilized, dirty, and a “polluting presence” in the English countryside reflects “the assumption that the countryside belongs to the privileged” (Sibley 1995: 107). In this context, landscape is the discursive construction of “a stereotyped pure space which cannot accommodate difference” (108).