Anti-trafficking a reason for border control or just an excuse?

Forums: Border Control, Borders
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Controlling drug trafficking, human trafficking, and exploitative economic practices/trade are a good reason for border control, and possibly the only good reason.

Anti-competitive economic protectionism, xenophobia, and exploitation of migrant workers are bad reasons, but all those things can be facilitated by border control without acknowledging them as the real reasons, provided other better reasons are named instead.

Each individual has their own reasons for supporting or resenting border control. Some people have legitimate interests in migration and trade, which are hindered by hurdles. Others seek to exploit and abuse others through trafficking and other bad forms of trade, and their interests are similarly hindered. Some people think they can force employers to pay more by reducing/eliminating foreign competition. Others just want to stimulate more local economic self-reliance because it would be better for the environment and sustainability than having all those fuel-burning ships crossing the oceans so much.

With all these different conflicting interests and reasons for border control, how can the bad interests/reasons be rebuked while also utilizing borders to support the good interests? This is an especially difficult question when you consider that migrants face xenophobia and discrimination from those who are simply prejudiced against them from a national-racist POV, regardless of how they are treated at the border by police.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 749 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@livinglava,

You don't think it plausible that a nation might feel a need to know just a little about a person entering their country - besides the simple fact that they are willing to enter in spite of existing laws?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

You don't think it plausible that a nation might feel a need to know just a little about a person entering their country - besides the simple fact that they are willing to enter in spite of existing laws?

The thread topic is whether people who want border control for bad reasons pretend to support it for good reasons in order to conceal the fact that they want it for bad reasons.

Your post seems to be on the side of those who want it for bad reasons, but maybe I misunderstand your post. It is fairly vague, after all.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Good question! It is very clearly just an excuse.

Groups that are actually focused on stopping trafficking want the following.

- They want automatic visas for victims of exploitation. Exploited workers should be able to go to the police without fear of being deported.

- They want to stop local police from turning victims of crime to the ICE. Sanctuary city laws help victims of exploitation... it means that they can count on the police to treat them as victims rather than as criminals.

- They want policies to strengthen immigrant communities, to give them more resources and stability in spite of the fact that these communities have mixed status families.

The people who are advocating for cruel immigration policies are using trafficking as an excuse. The people who are actually fighting human trafficking aren't in favor of the border wall, family separation.... and they are very much in favor of sanctuary policies.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Here is a statement from Polaris, a major anti-trafficking organization that runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline (the bolding is mine).

Quote:

“We can’t let growing anti-immigrant rhetoric create a climate of fear for vulnerable populations and prevent immigrant victims from seeking help. Traffickers are emboldened by anti-immigrant statements and policies, which they can weaponize as more powerful threats.

“We understand that some people may believe a wall along the southern border is important, and the debate on that is continuing. The issue of human trafficking, however, should not be part of that debate. Human trafficking is a human rights issue, a child protection issue, a national security issue, an immigration issue, a racial justice issue, and an economic issue that has enjoyed nearly twenty of years of bipartisan support where Republicans and Democrats have unified together to combat this crime. We should not politicize the fight against human trafficking and use the issue to justify a border wall.

“Let’s get the facts straight: Human trafficking happens in the United States, to people who are already here, to citizens and to foreign nationals. In our experience, having handled nearly 50,000 cases of human trafficking over the last decade, we know that the vast majority of victims who cross a border and are then trafficked in the United States arrive here through ports of entry and other legal means. Many fly here and travel through U.S. airports.

“Many trafficking victims came to the U.S. on legal temporary work visas but were trafficked and exploited because loopholes in the guestworker system leave workers vulnerable to abuse. If we really want to make a significant dent in human trafficking, we should fix the guestworker system by untying these visas from specific employers. The current rules, which require workers to stay in the employ of the company that sponsored the original visa, hand a powerful weapon to human traffickers who can threaten to get workers deported if they complain about wages and working conditions.”

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

roger wrote:

You don't think it plausible that a nation might feel a need to know just a little about a person entering their country - besides the simple fact that they are willing to enter in spite of existing laws?

The thread topic is whether people who want border control for bad reasons pretend to support it for good reasons in order to conceal the fact that they want it for bad reasons.

Your post seems to be on the side of those who want it for bad reasons, but maybe I misunderstand your post. It is fairly vague, after all.

Quite possible. I certainly have problems understanding many of yours.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Good question! It is very clearly just an excuse.

Groups that are actually focused on stopping trafficking want the following.

- They want automatic visas for victims of exploitation. Exploited workers should be able to go to the police without fear of being deported.

That would encourage:
1) false reporting in order to buy time
2) actual victimization to win visas for victims, who would still be manipulated/controlled without being deported because their families would be threatened if they disobey crime bosses.

Quote:

- They want to stop local police from turning victims of crime to the ICE. Sanctuary city laws help victims of exploitation... it means that they can count on the police to treat them as victims rather than as criminals.

You do understand that people abuse victim status/rights to gain some power within systems that recognize and compensate victimization, right?

Quote:

- They want policies to strengthen immigrant communities, to give them more resources and stability in spite of the fact that these communities have mixed status families.

Like stronger policing of crime within the community?

Quote:

The people who are advocating for cruel immigration policies are using trafficking as an excuse. The people who are actually fighting human trafficking aren't in favor of the border wall, family separation.... and they are very much in favor of sanctuary policies.

What makes you think people who claim to be 'actually' fighting human trafficking are not actually facilitating it by whitewashing policies that support trafficking as anti-trafficking policies?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are making excuses for a cruel policy.

If you cares about trafficking victims you would support giving them a visa. This is obviously what is best for them. The groups that are actually fighting against human trafficking say as much.

You are using victims of human trafficking to support a cruel policy. That is doubly cruel.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are making excuses for a cruel policy.

If you cares about trafficking victims you would support giving them a visa. This is obviously what is best for them. The groups that are actually fighting against human trafficking say as much.

You are using victims of human trafficking to support a cruel policy. That is doubly cruel.

I think that is like saying if you care about hostages, you should pay their ransom.

Governments that pay ransom and/or allow ransom to be paid for hostages are sending out a message to hostage-takers to target their citizens.

It is the same with visas. If traffickers know they can get visas for their victims in order to put them where they want them, they will coach their victims on what to say and how to manipulate the system to maximize their advantage.

I think what would be more effective would be to somehow disempower traffickers by preventing them from achieving their goals altogether; not just by denying entry/visas.

Maybe if there were extradition procedures that would allow trafficking victims to easily be sent to places where their traffickers don't want them, then traffickers would be wasting time/resources by sending people in the first place. I think in EU policies, this is (or used to be) called 'safe third-country asylum.'

1 Reply

@livinglava,

That's nonsense.

1. You make one logically valid point. If you help victims of violent crime, you run the risk that some people will pretend to be victims to get benefits. Thks doesn't change the fact that there are real victims.

2. If you think that "border security" is more important than helping victims of human trafficking have the balls to own up to this. But don't pretend that you care about victims of crime.

3. You are arguing that arresting the victims of crime is a way to deter criminals. This is ridiculous. The idea that helping rape victims is the same as paying money to a rapist is more ridiculous

You are using victims of a horrible crime to justify harsh policies.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. You make one logically valid point. If you help victims of violent crime, you run the risk that some people will pretend to be victims to get benefits. Thks doesn't change the fact that there are real victims.

I agree, and it is that much worse for the real victims that others, probably their own abusers included, are exploiting and benefiting from lying, and in the process killing those few weak policies that remain to help real victims. I don't think they will stop until all their victims are dead and they start realizing that they won't have anyone to bully, exploit, and victimize anymore because no one will stop them from destroying their own people.

Let's put this in perspective by thinking about it in terms of the Holocaust. Imagine if we found out after WWII that the Nazis went underground and were using/manipulating holocaust victims/survivors as secret agents by continuing to hold their relatives hostage in some way. Suddenly, we would have had to suspect holocaust survivors of being Nazi agents, which would have impeded the ability to help them. How would we have solved such a situation if it had occurred? By allowing the Nazis to win and send their victim-puppets around the world to procure their evil?

Quote:

2. If you think that "border security" is more important than helping victims of human trafficking have the balls to own up to this. But don't pretend that you care about victims of crime.

I want crime to stop. I don't want to open borders to criminals. When crime has stopped, I want people to be free to migrate in a responsible way that honors environment, planetary sustainability, and cultural/economic preservation/maintenance.

Quote:

3. You are arguing that arresting the victims of crime is a way to deter criminals. This is ridiculous. The idea that helping rape victims is the same as paying money to a rapist is more ridiculous

I wish you would just put some effort into understanding exactly what I'm saying instead of debating it and thereby obfuscating it.

If a trafficker can get a visa for their slave by coaching the slave to say whatever they need to say to get the visa, they will do so; and the slave will pretend whatever they have to pretend out of fear of retaliation against themselves and/or their families if they go against their traffickers/crime-bosses.

Quote:

You are using victims of a horrible crime to justify harsh policies.

That is exactly what you do by claiming less-harsh policies for victims are good for them, when in practice their abusers will be stimulated to use them more harshly and gain even more power because of the weaker policies.

Think of it this way: a drug lord can recruit and maintain mules and dealers more effectively if those mules and dealers aren't arrested and incarcerated. Once incarcerated, the only way those people are useful to the drug lord is if the prisons can be used effectively as part of the productive enterprise/network used by the drug lord. If there is some way to disrupt the relationship between the drug lord, his/her mules/dealers, and/or the client-base that supports the network by funding it with drug-purchases, then the drug lord might eventually give up because there is not enough money in the business and/or they waste too many resources recruiting and training people only to have them disabled as appendages of the lord's regime.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You are being ridiculous.Your basic argument is that helping crime victims by not arresting them is hurting them. You arent making any sense.

Let's be honest here. The border is about nationalism. These policies hurt the victims of him trafficking.

Are you really arguing that punishing the victims of crime will deter criminals?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Here is your problem.

Nationalism is inherently cruel. It divides the world into haves versus have nots; us versus them. To a nationalist anyone who isnt in the in-group doesnt doesnt deserve rights or compassion.

Christianity is inherently compassionate. A chrostian is supposed to love their neighbors without judgement, to welcome the stranger and protect people in need.

You are choosing nationalism and pretending it is Christianity. This basic contradiction is why you are having trouble even making sense.

What you are doing is inherently dishonest.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are being ridiculous.Your basic argument is that helping crime victims by not arresting them is hurting them. You arent making any sense.

Let's be honest here. The border is about nationalism. These policies hurt the victims of him trafficking.

Are you really arguing that punishing the victims of crime will deter criminals?

You are focused on the real victims, which you somehow assume you can discern from the liars/manipulators.

I am focused on the liars/manipulators and how to stop them so that there will be less/no real victims to begin with.

I am also concerned with how policies designed to help victims can ultimately lead to more victimization of others.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here is your problem.

If I had only ONE!

Quote:

Nationalism is inherently cruel. It divides the world into haves versus have nots; us versus them. To a nationalist anyone who isnt in the in-group doesnt doesnt deserve rights or compassion.

I agree, but consider what happened with the Holocaust and the formation of Israel. Jews needed a safe place to go to get away from hostile nationalists, and the only place they could establish as a refuge turned out to be a nation-state itself. So now people accuse Israel of being nationalist, but what other option do Jews/migrants have in a world where nationalism can't be stopped?

How long have we been teaching and preaching about the Holocaust and nazism only to have people deny that nationalism was at the heart of it? People have to have someplace to flee to when they are persecuted as migrants/'foreigners' and that place ends up being the nation-state where they have citizenship.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that having places of refuge from aggressive nationalism/xenophobia entails the maintenance and protection of nation-states separate from other nation-states, but ultimately it is a cross we all have to bear; i.e. being forced back to someplace by people who discriminate against others according to ideologies of belonging. The only people who aren't forced out of places where they are deemed 'foreign' are people who are tolerated for whatever reason, usually because they have money that they can be exploited for, or because they hold some other value to the people who are privileged as citizens.

Quote:

Christianity is inherently compassionate. A chrostian is supposed to love their neighbors without judgement, to welcome the stranger and protect people in need.

You are choosing nationalism and pretending it is Christianity. This basic contradiction is why you are having trouble even making sense.

What you are doing is inherently dishonest.

You keep misinterpreting my position as a nationalist one. What I have realized, as a person who seeks liberty for migrants, is that the world is full of nationalism that won't stop just because national borders are opened. E.g. People of one nationality will look at countries they value less than their own and migrate there just to exploit the people in the interest of benefiting their own countrymen.

This is not the way people should view the world. They should look at all their fellow humans (and other living things for that matter) as brothers and sisters of the same family. Just because you speak different languages than your siblings or honor different cultural ideas and traditions doesn't mean we are less brothers and sisters. As the Christmas song says, "joyful all ye nations rise, join the triumph of the skies," meaning yes we are divided by nationalism, but we should all rise up and join together in the triumph of heaven over evil.

So if we would just open the borders and allow all the nationalists of the world to go wherever they please to exploit 'foreigners,' it would just be multilateral colonial exploitation. The borders can be used as a tool against such exploitation, so that is the best thing we can do to fight (exploitative nationalism), only the problem, as you note, is that it maintains the inherent unfairness of dividing people into nationals/citizens and foreigners/non-citizens. Ideally, there will come a time when crime and other exploitation has subsided and we can all exercise the liberty to migrate responsibly wherever we deem it good to go. That would be nice, but I doubt it will happen within my lifetime.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Proverbs 10:19 wrote:

When words are many, sin is not absent

I think this thread was supposed to be about trafficking victims. You are arguing that victims of human trafficking should be arrested and deported (correct me if I am wrong). This has everything to do with compassion for victims of crime. This has nothing to do with "open borders".

In 1939 a ship carrying 937 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany was sent back by the United States. Many of the people on board died in concentration camps because of the hard line immigration policies of nationalists who feared open borders.

You are pushing a cruel policy to punish victims of crime because they are foreigners. You shouldn't be the one talking about the Nazis.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think this thread was supposed to be about trafficking victims. You are arguing that victims of human trafficking should be arrested and deported (correct me if I am wrong). This has everything to do with compassion for victims of crime. This has nothing to do with "open borders".

The point of the thread is about intent. My intent is that borders should be used to protect people against transnational crime/exploitation and not for the sake of discriminating against people on the basis of citizenship status.

Your victim-care narrative strikes me as an ideology to subtly promote policies that help the perpetrators of such transnational trafficking/exploitation.

I'm sorry that's going to offend you, but there's no point discussing that aspect of this issue any longer, because you refuse to acknowledge my point about how victim-care can be taken advantage of by traffickers who would seek to abuse such care to gain entry and strengthen their position in various ways.

Quote:

In 1939 a ship carrying 937 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany was sent back by the United States. Many of the people on board died in concentration camps because of the hard line immigration policies of nationalists who feared open borders.

And the question is what the true intent was in refusing entry. Was there suspicion that passengers could be moles/spies or was it purely a rejection of refugees deemed legitimate. That is a difficult question to ask because of the fact that people can always lie about their actual motives.

Quote:

You are pushing a cruel policy to punish victims of crime because they are foreigners. You shouldn't be the one talking about the Nazis.

If I was pushing cruelty, I wouldn't post this thread to elucidate the issue of bad people abusing narratives of goodness to procure bad policies and/or good policies for the wrong reasons.

I am trying to raise awareness of the complexities of border/nationalist politics and move beyond the naive assumption that nationalism and/or exploitation would stop if all nations were subsumed under a single flag and/or if all borders were indiscriminately opened to anyone who wanted to go anywhere for any reason.

I wish people would stop wasting discussion on accusations and work on discussing issues fully and clearly instead.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I don't think you are trying to be funny. But this is laughable.

1. The answer to the question in the title of this thread is; it is very clearly just an excuse (and your responses emphatically demonstrate that).

2. You are actually arguing that we shouldn't take care of the victims of crime.

3. Yes. You are arguing in favor of cruelty. Refusing to care for the victims of crime is cruel. Arresting and deporting the victims of crime is a cruel policy.

Quote:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think you are trying to be funny. But this is laughable.

1. The answer to the question in the title of this thread is; it is very clearly just an excuse (and your responses emphatically demonstrate that).

2. You are actually arguing that we shouldn't take care of the victims of crime.

3. Yes. You are arguing in favor of cruelty. Refusing to care for the victims of crime is cruel. Arresting and deporting the victims of crime is a cruel policy.

Quote:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

I'm sorry. I appreciate your reverence to the story of the good Samaritan, but there is a difference between how you treat someone when you come in contact with them personally in whatever situation you find yourself; and how you formulate policies that have the effect of giving evil manipulators something to work with in planning their systematic abuse and exploitation of others.

You are ignoring what I am saying about crime bosses exploiting victim-care as a tool for expanding their power, so it's time to move on to something else in this thread.

You have made your point that you consider me cruel toward victims of crime, and I have made my point that I think you ignore the ways that victim-care can be exploited for criminal gain and thus encourage more victimization.

Now there are other issues related to good and bad reasons for border control that can be discussed, so stop dwelling on the same sub-topic in post after post.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I am saying about crime bosses exploiting victim-care as a tool for expanding their power

Please give me specifics. How does does caring for victims of crime help crime bosses?

Usually victims of human trafficking are basically modern slaves. The crime bosses benefit from the fact that they have no rights. The victims are forced to do sex work (or other work) for no pay at great profit to the criminals.

The crime bosses want these victims to live in fear. Your cruel policies help the crime bosses by keeping the victims in fear.

These victims need protection. They need the ability to trust police. They need a way out and a chance at a good life.

Your nationalist policies help the criminals by keeping the victims in fear. You are being cruel, and your excuses for why you don't think victims of crime should be helped don't make the slightest bit of sense.

(I suspect that you are about to pretend victims of crime are themselves criminals)

1 Reply

Anti-trafficking a reason for border control or just an excuse?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know