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

Time after time you support the stereotypical nationalist policy; law enforcement, closed borders, the wall, etc.

Is there any example where you would choose compassion over nationalism?

I am not talking about a case where you think that nationalism is compassionate (there are probably examples where I agree). I am asking for an example where you see that nationalism is in conflict with compassion.... and you would choose the compassionate policy.

Have you ever chosen compassion?

If you make a rule that says victimization triggers visa rights, then you will have crime-planners who set up situations where people are victimized and given the needed documentation of their victimization to submit with their visa application.

Then, once the visa is secured, the victims will continue to abide by the crime directives in order to protect others who are being held hostage elsewhere if they defy whatever directions they are given by their bosses.


And they are most certainly threatened with violence toward their families and loved ones if they defy or fail to satisfy their bosses.

If they need documentation of victimization to gain visas, their bosses will arrange for violence and documentation thereof, and the documentation will not lead back to the boss who is exploiting them by sending them wherever with the visa gained by victimizing them and documenting it.


If bosses can't get visas for them by abusing and documenting the violence, that is one less impetus for victimizing them. Also the fact that they can't be sent to lucrative clients in places accessible with the visa means less reason to solicit/capture them for exploitation.


I agree, but I don't think law enforcement currently has the power to overcome crime's ability to elude/evade detection. Information tech and social media are very advanced now and clever people can communicate in coded messages that keep them under the radar.

This seems to have enabled crime networks to develop highly advanced organizing powers and as a result they have power (and arrogance) like never before to procure all sorts of mischief that once upon a time might have been more subdued out of fear of detection and punishment/retaliation.


Blaming me for nationalism won't help anything. I've told you my position over and over and you refuse to acknowledge it in favor of blaming for the very nationalism I am critical of, in order to goad me into supporting policies that enable greater exploitation of people, which is itself a byproduct of nationalism. I.e. when you can manufacture cheap sex slaves and drugs around the world and use them to extract money from growth economies, it is just neo-colonial slave trade; which is predicated on nationalist/racist separation of populations into different economic positions (cheap producers and big-spending consumers; interaction between which keeps the money flowing and thus the global economy growing)


Everyone who commits crime is a criminal. If you are trafficked and threatened into prostituting yourself, carrying drugs, etc. aren't you committing crimes? You may be able to argue your case in court and ask for witness-protection, etc. but if you do that, you may be risking retaliation against your family elsewhere. It is a sad and precarious position that makes liberation difficult if not impossible. It may be that the best we can do is to block access to lucrative markets of exploitation so that evil bosses will have less incentive to enslave people and threaten them with retaliation against their families.

You may be right that this doesn't help victims directly, but indirectly it may help them more than would giving them direct help that would make them greater targets and endanger their families more as a result of bosses salivating over the promise of visa access to lucrative clientele.

No. You are a victim. This is the problem with your entire ridiculous argument.

My question was whether you ever choose compassion over nationalism.

Victim and criminal aren't mutually exclusive categories. Neither are victim and bully.

Often bullies bully because they have either been victimized in the past and they are seeking to claim the kind of power they have received from the receiving end; or because they must bully others in order to gain some respect and mercy from other bullies lording over them.

Have you never heard of a 'pecking order?'


I don't understand why you keep accusing me of nationalism? Whether you (choose to) see the negative side of nationalism, separation. citizen/non-citizen status differentiation/exclusion, native/foreign discrimination, etc. etc.; we are all complicit in nationalism to the extent that we operate with a world government of national governments.

What you are saying would be like me asking you whether you ever choose compassion over sexism. Since you are into sex that objectifies women, you clearly participate in (consensual?) sexploitation, but that doesn't mean you aren't also compassionate, even toward the women whose sexuality you exploit for your own pleasure. They are not mutually exclusive categories.

Oppression and compassion are not mutually exclusive; just contradictory.


No one does nothing. Everything you do contributes to either good or bad in the world, and usually both in various ways.

Your implication that people can 'do nothing' is predicated on false understanding of cause and effect.