The bitter, bitter, bitter irony, colleagues, is that quite often the victims [of human trafficking] are the ones who are punished, and these mobsters and criminals who are involved in the trafficking of these women and girls with this blatant exploitation get away with literally murder.
-- Sen. Paul Wellstone, 7 Jul. 2000
Today, I have a post up that details the flawed method of dealing with human trafficking that the US has adopted. The most relevant part to DKos I assume would be the part that describes how GOP fears about visa fraud made it significantly harder for victims to achiever a temporary form immigration relief.
Here's an except that describes the GOP's role:
Despite the perception of human trafficking being a consequence of open borders and lax immigration controls, the exact opposite is most likely the case. A Congressional Research Service report on the topic lists the following as contributing factors (emphasis mine):
The increasing restrictions on legal immigration to many destination countries—including the United States and Western Europe—have caused many migrants to turn to alien smugglers and even human traffickers, despite the associated risks involved [and] the tendency to treat trafficking victims as criminals has made many victims reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement (CRS, No. RL34317, p. 4).
The report further asserts that the undocumented immigration status also hinders "the ability of the victim to provide testimony during a criminal trial" (Id., p. 24).
Members of Congress took notice of perverse enforcement priorities in the late 1990s and began a series of hearings on the subject. Senators such as the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and evangelical figure Sam Brownback (R-KS) joined forces in a crusade for the prosecution of traffickers and the protection of trafficking victims. Their efforts culminated in the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. One of the main features of the bill was the creation of the T-Visa for victims of human trafficking. However, the visa has an incredibly stringent set of requirements. In addition to being considered a victim of a "severe form of trafficking in persons," there are three preconditions.
(1) Physically present in the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or a port of entry thereto on account of trafficking in such persons;
(2) if 15 years of age or older, must have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking; and
(3) must be likely to suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal (Federal Register, No. 03-16194).
If these sound like onerous conditions, that's because they were intended to be as restrictive as possible. According to a statement by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on the floor of Congress on 9 May 2000:
H.R. 3244 is a modest effort to eradicate forcible and/or fraudulent trafficking of persons into prostitution or involuntary servitude. The bill provides some protection for victims who would otherwise be deportable if identified by law enforcement by creating a new "T" visa category for eligible victims. Unfortunately, the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee is much more restrictive than the bill originally introduced by Representative Chris Smith and Representative Sam Gejdenson. A compromise bill was substituted by the Republicans immediately prior to the Judiciary Committee mark-up to satisfy their unrealistic concerns that the bill would enable persons to fraudulently obtain a lawful status by claiming that they were a victim of sex trafficking or involuntary servitude. In particular, the Committee-reported bill incorporated several significant restrictions on the availability of visas for victims of sex trafficking and involuntary servitude (Congressional Record, Vol. 146, no. 56, p. H2675).
Indeed. In the bill as originally proposed, the requirement that the victim be "physically present in the United States" does not require that the presence in the country be "on account of trafficking in such persons." The original bill would have also established that the victim would have to prove "significant possibility of retribution or other hardship" if deported. As passed into law, however, it requires a likelihood of undergoing "extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm."
With the current wingnut-engineered nontrovery over Planned Parenthood in full view, it's worth looking at genuine ways we can help human trafficking victims.
Back when James "dildo boat" O'Keefe was making headlines over his bullshit anti-ACORN antics, a blog called "Citizen Orange" had a post up describing the politics of human trafficking and the way right-wingers shamelessly exploited it to score a hit on perceived political opponents:
The work of O'Keefe, Giles, and Beck serves not the interests of low-income communities in the U.S., but rather the political interests of the GOP and GOP-approved media. Those political interests include further marginalizing black and latin@ communities because they vote heavily against Republicans.
I know Glenn Beck isn't concerned about the Salvadoran girls he knew never existed in O'Keefe's fantasy scenario but do exist in real life by the way he described them repeatedly as "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" in his broadcast (for instance, here at 8:05). That is a tried and true way to dehumanize actual people before locking them up and sending them back to meet their fate. It applies to day laborers waiting at the Home Depot and it applies to 13-year-old Salvadoran trafficking victims.
Beck's attitude towards child trafficking victims is of a piece with his attitude on immigration more generally. He views undocumented immigrants as a deep threat to American society, one that can be sanitized by deporting the "problem" back to the home country, leaving America pure again. But traffickers rely on people like Beck to demonize the victims, keeping the whole operation in the shadows and away from the eyes of law enforcement, keeping the victims here in the U.S. Traffickers prey on communities that exist outside the law, on people who have no legal standing because nativists like Beck have perverted the principle of "rule of law" to exclude from the law's reach entire groups of people.
[...]
If James O'Keefe's point in filming ACORN employees unawares was to highlight the plight of trafficking victims in the U.S. and the grossly inadequate efforts of the federal government to stop sex trafficking, I applaud him for his courage. I will be waiting to see how he and Glenn Beck follow up on this important issue (please leave a note in comments if you hear of any attempt to do so).
I'm afraid, though, that neither O'Keefe nor Beck understand how trafficking in the U.S. works or have devoted much thought to victims of trafficking. Instead, O'Keefe's video and its promotion represented a cheap but effective tactic designed to (1) gain ratings in the face of a boycott, (2) inflict damage on longtime political opponents, and (3) derail health care reform. That is pretty shady if you ask me, and leads me to wonder whether O'Keefe is still inhabiting the fantasy scenario he created when he calls himself a "radical progressive." Mr. O'Keefe, I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
Something to think about.