Samhita,

Just out of curiosity, what word do you prefer rather than "undocumented"? I'm still working pretty hard (and without much success) down here in Mississippi to get people to say "undocumented" instead of "illegal."

Cheers,

TH

I just got back from a BorderLinks trip (BorderLinks is an organization that focuses on the conditions, the injustices, and the realities of life on and near the border--from both the US and Mexican perspectives. Its an EXCELLENT organization. Please check out their website, BorderLinks.org (or, Womenoftheborder.org--another great organization dealing with these issues).

What you bring up, first a side note on language: "Undocumented Worker" is the term I prefer because it addresses the notion of documentation as recent US construct, generally dating in the case of Mexican workers, to the crack down of the border after the passage of NAFTA in the 1990's. "Illegal" immigrant implies two things, A. they are breaking the law & are in the wrong and B. that they are here to stay--neither of which was traditionally true with Mexican workers who were itinerent in the American South West and California (also, not the "Mexican American War"--you know, when we took the entire South West and California--is called the "Yankee Invasion" in Mexico. Anyway, that's a longer deconstruction, but to the primarily concern of the article:

Trafficing: one of the workshops we attended (I'm in graduate school and this was a trip offered for credit)...regarded human trafficing and IF it can be proven that the undocumented were trafficed, kept or forced to work, even in "illegal" industries, especially prostituion, there is a special visa designation for them to stay--this is a very recent law and is being being promoted by a very small (five person office in Phoneix, Ar) by the government. So, if they can get to you and inform you and help you with the paper-work, you can stay. This is very difficult, and many many people trafficed (the majority of whom are kept against their will and forced to do agricultural work without pay...they also qualify to stay)...the majority of people, are deported, despite being crime victims.

TH - What is the matter with calling them illegal aliens? They are aliens to this country and entered illegally, correct? They also continue to reside in this country illegally, correct?

“The women told agents they were moved among locations in several states and forced to perform sex acts for money, court documents said.
The men accused of working for Balderas pleaded guilty in federal court to transporting and harboring illegal immigrants, served 15 months in prison and were deported.� – AP

If the women were forced to perform sex acts, how can these men only be charged with transporting and harboring illegal immigrants? I realize plea bargains happen, but that seem ridiculous.

What's wrong, noname, is that they are not illegal. Their actions are illegal. If you steal, you have done something illegal. Same if you murder, rape, cheat on your taxes, or speed. But nobody (to my knowledge) has ever called a person guilty of any of those crimes "an illegal." The term is meant to dehumanize, and succeeds.

Another minor point would be that in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. So if there is no trial, it isn't clear that one has done something illegal, even if it were sematically possible for a human being to be illegal.

As for "alien," there are plenty of less inflamatory terms. Let's use them!

If there is really a case for deporting or otherwise penalizing undocumented workers, it can be made without the use of innaccurate and provacative language. If such an argument can't be made without those tools, I am left to wonder how strong an argument it was in the first place.

As for Samhita's original question - I don't know, but I somehow doubt that it's good.

DT – We are not talking about an action, we are talking about a status. When one calls someone an “illegal alien� one is referring to them as an alien (true) and to their alien status as illegal (also true). I can see, however, how this term is deliberately strong to the point of bias towards strict immigration policies.

As for innocent until proven guilty, you are absolutely right. I disagree with anyone who would throw around the term “illegal alien� without some sort of proof that the target is in fact in the country illegally.

The term illegal alien refers to the STATUS of the resident, it is not a commentary on the value of the person. It is not an inflammatory word.

The term immigrant means that the person wants to leave their home country and permantly reside in the United States.

The term undocumented worker is probably a recent word. But I disagree with the poster who said that documentation itself is a recent US construct. Persons who enter this country have always needed documentation, otherwise they cannot enter. The big US corporations have loved the word undocumented worker, because it implies that they are "workers" here filling a need for the economy. That they do, perhaps, and a lot of the temporary flows are due to seasonal work, but it also fills the need of big US corporations to line their pockets with cheap labor. So I don't believe this term was started to help the individual, but instead to help the corporation. Any worker not in a seasonal industry like farming, should have to apply for residency like anyone else. But if the situation is that there are a million immigrants here, (illegal) but productive, putting down roots, paying taxes, etc, then they should be reclassified and given green cards or something and have them work towards citizenship.

The illegal status of any foreign worker can be exploited by industry, and corrupt individuals within industry. NPR had a piece the other day about immigrant women in the fields who are routinely sexually harrassed or raped because of their powerlessness and fear of the police. So they are trapped into abusive situations.

But getting back on topic, as you all say here,... the post was about sex trafficking, not male mexican workers. Sex trafficking (not trafficing by the way), is probably by far the largest threat to women around the globe right now. The subject has come up here briefly before. It infuriates me that the border patrol just looks the other way and allows this to occur. Perhaps they see it as prostitution, but it is not that. It is closer to slavery. Women all around the world are promised jobs and hooked up to brothels instead. Many have to work for years to repay debt. Some are literally sex slaves, bought and sold.

When Samhita asked, what will happen to these women when the ring is broken up, I'm thinking the same thing. Now that they've been spiritually destroyed and emotionally and physically abused, where do they go, even if they are permited to reside here?

"Illegal alien" is just as true as any other descriptor. "Illegal" means "against the law". "alien" means "one who is not a citizen".

I confess that the whole "don't say illegal!" seems to me to be sort of a sneaky end run around it: it's one thing to change the immigration laws (great, i'm all for it) and another thing to invent euphimisms like "undocumented" to refer to illegal aliens.

DT, that innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't work in this context. It's perfectly possible to commit an illegal act without a trial. That doesn't mean you're a FELON. Or necessarily a CRIMINAL. What, now rape's not illegal until you get convicted? You're playing semantic games here.

The 'documented' folks are trying to change the word and humanize aliens, instead of getting people to focus on (or acknowledge) that the aliens are, in many cases, illegal. I like the 'humanize' part. I dislike the sneaky rewording.

Though I confess it does lead to some funny right wing blog attacks, claiming theives are "undocumented owners" and the like.

That said: What about the women? It really doesn't seem right to deport them (unless they want to go back), since they may need assistance and were in trouble in our country. That program sounds like a good idea.

I wonder whether the limited spread of the program is because it focuses on intent at the border: e.g. perhaps you are eligible for the visa if you were brought in against your will as part of trafficking, but not if you snuck in on your own and then became a prostitute, even if you were essentially enslaved by your pimp? Anyone know?

BTW: I AM NOT saying this is what SHOULD happen. I am trying to figure out why the program is so small. Doesn't make sense.

Noname - I agree that the term "illegal alien" makes sense. I still maintain that "illegal" does not when used by itself to refer to a person.

MsJane - I disagree when you say that "illegal" is not an inflamatory term. The fact that people spend so much time arguing about it implies that it is.

Sailorman - Semantic games? Me? Obviously, an act is illegal even before a trial. But when someone is suspect of rape, he (or she) is an "alleged rapist." Which, by analogy, would make the term "alleged illegal alien." FYI, I'm not advocating we use this term. I'm just saying that if it isn't okay to call an alleged rapist a rapist (and I'm quite sure it isn't), maybe that should hold true for foreign nationals as well.

I don't approve of sneaky rewording either. But I repeat: if you can't make your point on logical grounds alone, language that pisses people off is unlikely to help.

I agree that "alien" means "foreign," among other words. But there's a denotation and a conotation, and I believe we would do well to err on the side of not dehumanizing people who already have it pretty rough.

DT,

The word is accurate because it excludes by definition.

Let's talk about "rapists" as an example.

I think rapists should be harshly punished. I also think rapists' actions are currently underreported. I do not think enough rapists are convicted.

That makes sense, right?

I hope so....

It makes sense because you know I am not talking about "people who didn't rape anyone, but got accused of rape." And I'm not excluding "people who DID rape someone and were erroneously not caught or convicted." No, I'm talking about rapists. People who raped someone.

I can DEFINE them all, and I can NAME them all, even if I can't IDENTIFY them all.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with the term "illegal alien."

Why?

Well, if someone is NOT an illegal alien, then--yay!--you're not talking about them. Just like rapists.

You are conflating two practices:

One inappropriate practice is that of using "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" to refer to anyone other than an ACTUAL illegal alien. As in "all mexicans are illegal aliens" (bad).

An appropriate practice is to use the term generally in its proper context, such "we should try to prevent aliens from entering the US" or "an alien who has entered without permission has broken our laws, and is therefore an illegal alien" or "we should deport more/fewer illegal aliens."

I'm entirely with DT on this one. Whether or not you can get a denotatively neutral definition out of "illegal alien", my observation has been that carries an inflammatory and pejorative connotation that is used to dehumanize people.

Not "can be used", but is used. I see people respond in a much more hostile fashion when talking about "illegal aliens" than when talking about "undocumented workers".

As to the question about the women, my understanding is that they are deported. I can't find a reference to back that as policy, however.

Sailorman - We're back to that denotation/conotation thing. There's also an issue of responsible behavior. To continue with the whole rapist thing (how often do you get to say that?) think of the recent case involving Duke.

If, for example, I had railed against rapists while spouting facts about the Duke lacross team at the same time... hey, I never said they were rapists, so I'm not doing anything wrong. Except we both know that I wouldn't be doing anything right, either.

In college I had a logic teacher who once explained that he could justify punishing his son for cursing if the son said "he said 'shit.'" Since the son quoted it, it was logically quite different from saying it.

I thought it was funny when my teacher told us that story, but I don't think it applies elsewhere. I suspect the kid got away with it exactly once.

There's such a thing as responsible language.

Zed - thanks. When I hear the word alien, I think ET.

Hmm.

If you take that tack, and not the "it's not logical or proper syntax to call them illegal" then oddly enough, I sort of agree with you. Some words certainly take on connotations unrelated to their actual meaning. "Niggardly" is an excellent example of a word unrelated to the N-word, that has for obvious--and appropriate reasons--become unacceptable.

I would agree with the concept "you shouldn't bring up ____'s legal status because it's impolite and/or dehumanizing; they're a nice person and don't deserve that." And similarly I would abide by that suggestion when talking about populations.

I get up in arms though when people start implying that my abiding by those rules of manners means I'm conceding the underlying facts. That ____ is nice, and human, and deserving of politeness, doesn't really have a darn thing to do with ____'s legal/illegal status.

So I am a bit cautious. A lot of the folks who are against the term "illegal alien" are ALSO of the view that there are no illegal aliens, or that there can be no such thing as an illegal alien. You probably know as well as I do that the political movement to refer to illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants" is deliberately trying to use that term to confound people.

"Noname - I agree that the term "illegal alien" makes sense. I still maintain that "illegal" does not when used by itself to refer to a person." - DT

No arguments here. I agree completely.

I just filled out some immigration paperwork, and the word "alien" was all over the place. It IS dehumanizing. Try to imagine someone spitting the word "illegal alien" at you like you're a dirty foreigner who doesn't know well enough to stay in your own country.

On topic, women end up in brothels because of few options in their own countries. There are people who exploit that.

This isn't just a matter of the United States looking the other way... this is a problem in a number of Western countries. There needs to be an international effort to stop this from happening.

On a more local level, I'm sure there are grassroots and community-based groups dedicated to helping women in such situations learn English, find employment, and perhaps even go to school. I guess all those of us who live farther away can do is help support them in their efforts.

"Ultimately, I must ask what happens to these women after the prostitution rings are busted up?"

as the anti-trafficking movement gains steam, hopefully there will be more opportunities and organizations springing up accross the counrty. i work for one of these organizations in los angeles and in the case of a brothel or sex ring bust, the clients are referred to us by law enforcement. our organization provides comprehensive social and legal services (including helping them seek a T-visa). we also have a training and advocacy department which has trained over 5000 people in various industries (law enforcement, housing, medicine, etc) in recognizing and treating victims of trafficking. for more information on our organization see www.castla.org

i would have to disagree with the commenter who suggested that sex trafficking is "probably by far the largest threat to women around the globe right now" because it really downplays the seriousness of the other types of trafficking victims. many, if not a majority of the victims we serve are actually domestic and labor victims, and while they are often sexually abused as well, sex trafficking tends to get the media attention because of it is flashier and more shocking.

Myste:

It's good to know that law enforcement agencies are being helpful with this. Thanks for sharing.

"Try to imagine someone spitting the word "illegal alien" at you like you're a dirty foreigner who doesn't know well enough to stay in your own country." - prairielily

Take away the word "dirty" (because it has nothing to do with this) and add "if you don't have permission to enter another" (because this quaification is what makes entry illegal). Now your statement reads:

"Try to imagine someone spitting the word "illegal alien" at you like you're a foreigner who doesn't know well enough to stay in your own country if you don't have permission to enter another."

Aside from all the spitting, this seems pretty reasonable.

noname:

Wow, yes, if you completely rewrite the sentence, it means something completely different! How about that!

Zed - I think you missed my point.

LOL.

Gonna have to go with Zed and DT on this one. They explain it much better than I could, but that never stopped me from posting before.

"Try to imagine someone spitting the word "illegal alien" at you like you're a foreigner who doesn't know well enough to stay in your own country if you don't have permission to enter another."

I have a problem with this. Even with the "correct" wording, it's still awful. Do people realize that many "aliens" come to America because they are destitute and desperate for hope? So all this nonsense about "don't know well enough to stay in a coutry you don't have permission to enter" is, well, nonsense.

It makes them sound stupid or willful and stubborn. In reality many of them are desperate and starving. It's like telling a dying man in the desert that your oasis has a "Keep Out" sign and what's wrong with him for not realizing that?!?

A man dying of thirst ignores your "Keep Out" sign because he's dying of thirst. He's not stupid, he's not stubborn, and he's not trying to piss you off. He's just really, really thirsty.

Or I'm an idiot. Either way. :)

noname, I think YOU missed MY point. When people use the term "illegal alien," what I said (including the word dirty) is often EXACTLY what they mean.

Thank you, Zed and EJ. EJ, you're far from an idiot.

Aw, shucks. I try. ;)

EJ - You are right. The "who doesn't know well enough to stay in your own country" section implies ignorance. Almost all illegal aliens know they are enterring against the law, so I will replace that with, "who chooses not to stay in your own country". I think we will also lose "spitting" while we're at it. So we now have:

"Try to imagine someone saying the word "illegal alien" like you're a foreigner who chooses not to stay in your own country even though you don't have permission to enter another."

Zed - In case you haven't caught on, I am trying to show that prairielily's example is dehumanizing because of the context in which she placed "illegal alien", not because of the term itself.

But, noname, you're still missing my point.

The fact that they enter "by choice" isn't relevant. Everyone enters America by choice, except for the sex slaves (which is what this topic is about, but what the hell, we're this far off topic and I never look back!) and people who are born here.

In fact, you could argue that the "illegal aliens" are the best Americans of all - they like America so much that they come here even when they have to break the law to do it! ;) Unlike the rest of us lazy bastards who got citizenship handed to us on a silver platter. What have YOU done to earn YOUR citizenship today? (/silly)

Seriously, while they don't have permission to enter and yet do it anyway by choice, they still shouldn't be vilified for it. Your statement may be "factual" but it doesn't remove the inherent hatred. They come here "by choice" because they need food, clothing, medical care and they have no other way to obtain it. To hate them for this is barbaric. Are they "illegal aliens"? Yes. Should the term be used? A resounding no.

IMHO.

prairielily – Ex: A frat guy turns to his (male) buddy who just said he can’t drink another beer. The frat guy exclaims: “Quit being such a woman� like his buddy is a weak sub-human who can’t even drink like a real man.

Do we need to find a new term to replace “woman� just because it is sometimes used in a derogatory manner within an offensive context?

Noname -

"Woman" is a non-derogatory term that can be used in a derogatory manner.

"Nigger" or "Negro" is a derogatory term that can be used in a non-derogatory manner (or so I'm told).

Similarly, "Illegal alien" is a derogatory term that can be used in a non-derogatory manner.

The fact that a black person IS "a nigger" (derived from the latin term for "black") and the fact that an undocumented worked IS an "illegal alien" does not mean we should use or codone the use of said terms.

noname:

Since you still haven't caught on, prairielily's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not the term has a denotatively dehumanizing definition if its most common usage is dehumanizing.

In other words, yes, it's dehumanizing because the context in which it is almost always used is dehumanizing. The same is true of "nigger", for instance. It's just a corruption of a word meaning "black". Or "jap". It's just an abbreviation after all. And both words are accurate. They're only dehumanizing because of the context in which they are used (note for instance that you can get away with using "nigga" if you're a part of a certain black subculture yourself).

My snark at you was a subtle (and apparently too subtle) attempt to point out that prairielily was describing how it is used, not how it theoretically could be used by a completely dispassionate academic, and by rewriting it, you've completely missed her point.

When people hear the term "illegal aliens" in conversation, it often carries the implicit connotation of someone dirty, stupid, greedy, scheming, dishonest, and/or too much not like ourselves to care about what happens to them. It doesn't matter whether or not any of those things are literally encapsulated by the words "illegal" or "alien" -- it's what the tone of the conversation gets set to, fair or not.

"Illegal alien" is a derogatory term" - EJ

You are begging the question.

Just to clarify, I am not anti-immigration. I am anti illegal immigration. To tell the truth, I am an ex-pat myself (which would apparently make me a bad American) in the middle of trying to get my work visa for my (relatively) new country.

Zed - I understood your snark. I was just returning the favor. ;)

I was going to respond to your "begging the question" statement, but Zed already did, so, uh, re-read his post and pretend it's mine. :)

'Course, I'm not as eloquent as that, but humor me!

noname:

You are begging the question.

Ah, I think I see the problem. You are thinking that whether or not a term is derogatory is a matter of etymology. As shown by the use of "nigger" and "jap", or for that matter (to pick a much more recent example), "hadji", whether or not a term is derogatory is determined not by inherent meaning, but by popular usage.

For you to disprove this, you need to demonstrate that the attached connotations we are describing is a minority usage, not that the literal components don't include the connotations.

Zed - You are giving me far too much credit. I am saying that I, and those around me (as far as I know), use the term in a non-judgmental manner. I assumed that my usage was the generally accepted one. I think that you are saying the generally accepted usage is in fact derogatory, and therefore differs from my assumed usage. As I have actively avoided the whole immigration controversy which has blown up (until now) and currently reside outside of the US, I guess I will have to assume you are correct (as far as popular usage) and re-consider my position accordingly.

Myste, do you have any links showing that most trafficking is for forced labor and not sex? I've heard this assertion before, but when Googling for studies that could substantiate it, I found that the opposite was true. For example, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime's study about global patterns in trafficking of persons says that 87% of trafficked people are used for sexual exploitation whereas only 28% are used for forced labor.

About the term "illegal alien," I think focusing on words misses the point. Speaking as someone who in a way has just immigrated to the US (legally), I don't really care about how the law refers to me. I care about having to be photographed and fingerprinted as if I'm a criminal, and about having to ask permission before taking any kind of paid work, and even about frivolous questions on visa applications like "Are you intending to engage in terrorism?". I don't care about how people refer to me; I'd much rather Americans stop considering non-American untermenschen than concentrate on using terms that pretend to promote equality.

Alon Levy:

I see your point. I've been fingerprinted and photographed myself, and I've even been turned around at the border without a reason. Apparently, they don't need to give you a reason.

But those are things the government does, and I was talking about things the average person does. The government can treat foreigners who want to immigrate badly because the average person doesn't care.

As someone who has just immigrated to the US, I think you can attest to how difficult countries make it to legally enter. If it was a simpler, cheaper process that wasn't so prone to lost paperwork and end result denials, I'm sure more people would take it.

Alon - As I said before, I am currently an ex-pat as well. I have been finger-printed, photographed multiple times, my past has been examined extensively, and my current job scrutinized. It is a pain in the ass, but I would not say that I have been treated as a criminal (or mistreated at all for that matter).

No, Prairielily, they definitely don't need to give you a reason. And you're absolutely right: if the people cared more, they'd make sure the government stopped treating foreigners as untermenschen.

I'm just not sure that switching to a less loaded term would help. Highly offensive terms like "nigger" shouldn't be used, but pejorating less offensive ones like "black," "Indian," and "alien" can actively hinder the progress of equality by allowing xenophobes to tell themselves, "Well, I'm saying that Africans are lazy instead of that negros are lazy, so I'm not a racist."

I think that in the case of the US, this xenophobia stems largely from lack of knowledge. The US is less racist than Europe, and yet its immigration policy is more draconian, so it's likely that the problem is peculiarly American, so relative ignorance of other nations is a prime suspect. I think that in fact, the recent pro-immigrant movement arises from the fact that so many Americans, especially Hispanic-Americans, know some illegal immigrants personally.

Noname, I've been treated fairly well, too, in fact. I think it's largely a privilege I get from having a German citizenship; if I only had my Israeli one, or if I were Mexican, I wouldn't be so lucky. But I do think that in a country where fingerprinting law-abiding citizens is considered an outrage, people should display more concern with fingerprinting of law-abiding non-citizens.

Alon - Fair enough. Of course I personally am not immigrating to the US, and the fingerprinting was part the process used to confirm that I had no criminal history.

noname:

It may be a matter of location. I'm currently in Louisiana, USA, not exactly a shining example of the defeat of racism, but even on the (relatively sheltered) university campus, I see that kind of reaction. I've also seen it when visiting home in California, but that's a location where tensions on the topic are a little high for reasons of proximity.

There may well be areas where you can use the word without the baggage. I just haven't been in one.

"...i would have to disagree with the commenter who suggested that sex trafficking is [the largest threat] to women because it downplays the seriousness of [other trafficking victims.] many, if not a majority of the victims we serve are domestic and labor victims, and while they are often sexually abused as well, sex trafficking tends to get the media attention because of it is flashier and more shocking."
Posted by: myste

Well, what can be more shocking and dangerous than women and children being bought and sold as sex slaves?

I understand that you, personally, come into contact with mostly labor victims, and I visited your website, which again seemed to focus on labor. The sex industry is a different ballgame. And not only because it's more revolting and dehumanizing, but because it involves mostly women and girls, and because it is on the rise. It is an increasing threat, and it has my attention.

80 to 90 percent of the women trafficked between borders are female, and they do end up in the sex industry, not somewhere else. That is because it is so profitable. I mean, there are hundreds of websites if you're interested. Here are a couple facts:

"Not all, but most of the women and children are trafficked into the sex industry. So sex trafficking is a booming industry, and we are only at the beginning stages of addressing it..."

"Human trafficking is the third largest criminal industry in the world, after drug and arms dealing. And it is the fastest growing. It is an incredibly lucrative industry. In terms of risk to the traffickers, sex trafficking presents a much lower risk than either arms dealing or drug trafficking."

"According to some estimates, sex trafficking will take over drug trafficking in the next decades as the second largest criminal industry."

Polaris Project -Sex Trafficking

So this is not a small problem. Yes, I did not focus on sweatshops, but it is not fair to say that I am downplaying the seriousness of those other issues when I talk about sex trafficking.

Zed,

It's not here in Texas, that's for sure.

And I just read that in Georgia they've outlawed mobile taco stands because, basically, Mexicans like tacos and all Mexicans are IA (Illegal Aliens). For anyone wondering if they banned those noisy ubiquitous ice cream trucks, I believe they are still good to go.

Wow, I missed a lot of conversation here.
Sailorman - I think we're on the same page. Just because I support the use of neutral language doesn't mean that I'm all for unchecked immigration, but I can see why one might think that. There are a lot of political debates that are framed by the language we use.

As for everyone else, I agree that attitudes depend partially on where one lives. I live in NYC. I have a good number of friends who have visa problems now, and the majority are not the "illegal aliens" of the news. They're professionals working in this country who never had problems with their legal status until now. I'm not saying they deserve better treatment than anyone else, but I am quite sure that they are not the people who conservatives mean to target.

My grandparents were immigrants. If you go far enough back, all of us who are not Native American are the children of immigrants.

Alon - the actually ask you if you plan to be a terrorist? That's funny (probably not to you at the time, but it's pretty absurd).

DT, I agree with you.

I don't think changing terms will solve the "spit" tactic though. Those who spit out the term "illegal alien" are probably the same folks who spit out the term "wetback" and I have little doubt they they are capable of making "undocumented" sound equally insulting should they choose to do so, which they obviously will. The problem is the PERSON not the VOCABULARY.

You are correct that the government views expired visas comewhat differently. The visa process allows them (in theory, at least) to do a slight initial screening of the applicants. The "hop the border" technique does not. Thus from a statistical sense, it's less likely that someone who got a visa is "unwanted" by governmental standards. Though in my experience we will happily kick out expired-visa folks too, mostly because they are a lot easier to track down and deport cheaply (through the visa) and it makes for "good press."

msjane, thanks for your response, i agree with you when you say that "this is not a small problem. Yes, I did not focus on sweatshops, but it is not fair to say that I am downplaying the seriousness of those other issues when I talk about sex trafficking."

i raised my comment as i did not to eclipse sex trafficking as a horrible and prevalent harm, but rather to bring the other forms of trafficking into the light. i dont think you personally are downplaying the other industries, i just wanted to include them in the plight of all trafficking survivors.

i guess my issue with your comment (which was right on) was just i would tweak the language (and the language in our minds) to better include the thousands of women who are trafficked into other industries (which usually also include an element of sexual exploitation).

"Myste, do you have any links showing that most trafficking is for forced labor and not sex? I've heard this assertion before, but when Googling for studies that could substantiate it, I found that the opposite was true."

i was not saying that most victims are labor victims and not sex victims, but rather "many or most" of the victims my organization serves are. we do work with both, but from an advocacy standpoint it is seems like labor/domestic trafficking is such an uphill battle because people aren't even aware that it exists and it can often be harder for labor and domestic victims to get help.

sex trafficking gets the press (rightly so) but other industries are left out in the cold by the media the majority of the time (which i would like to see change)

"87% of trafficked people are used for sexual exploitation whereas only 28% are used for forced labor."

well there is quite a bit of overlap. several victims aren't trafficked directly into the sex industry but while enslaved in other industries are sexually exploited as well.

and polaris is a great organization, we have done a bit of partnership with them.

DT, yeah, they even ask you if you're just visiting. A french friend of mine (a 14 year old girl) was recently trying to get a passport to come to America on holiday and one of the questions the Americans asked was, "Do you intend to perform terrorists acts against the United States?"

How stupid is that? I guess we think terrorists are really, really dumb.

Everyone who wants to get any kind of visa has to fill in this form. Go to question number 39, which has gems like, "Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?"

Honestly, I thought it was really funny. If I were more daring I'd have answered yes and declared that I was Hitler's personal aide, hoping that the immigration inspector had enough of a sense of humor to see that I was born a couple decades after Hitler's death.

Stupid error: the question I'm talking about is 38, not 39.

Probably would have been a mistake that would have haunted you for the rest of your life. :)

Seriously, they don't have a sense of humor.

myste,

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful post. I don't see nearly enough of that commentary here.

And I do understand NOW how you feel. And you are right to have the concerns you do have, especially since you have rolled up your sleeves and are making a difference on the issue of concern to you, which of course is linked to so many other issues. And yes, there should be more press about all of these things in the MSM, instead of a steady stream of celebrity news and the trial de jour.

So thanks for your comments. I think many posters here enjoy responding differently for some reason, which often goes something like this:

1. Be offended by a response, and accuse the poster of trying to discredit them. 2. Deny having said it. 3) Spin their way out by describing the issued in 5 different ways. 4) Accuse the other person of racism, bigotry, nationalism, classism, and every other "ism." 5) Claim their issues are more important than your issues. 6) Rinse and Repeat.

I visited your website, as I do occasionally with other posters. I liked it very much. I liked the recent posts and news articles, and the whole site has good karma. I'll read back there when I have more time.

take care.

Alon - my family is Canadian. We were plagued by so many delays (including lost paperwork) that my father spoke with his Senator about it. I always thought that being Canadian would hold some weight, but I think there's enough anti-immigrant sentiment right now that it doesn't matter. Plus, my parents were born in Pakistan.

I agree with your thoughts on less offensive terms, but I don't think that means that we should allow the ones that are offensive. Obviously, people's minds need to be changed more than anything else.

People were arguing over whether the term "alien" was offensive, and since I HATED reading it over and over in reference to myself, and I HATED seeing the way Mexicans were treated by everyone when I lived in the US, I offered my opinion.

Myste, thank you for your comments. They were very informative, and on-topic.

this is a feminist website, and the arcticle focuses on the border patrol!? What about the Mexican men who use these women, Mexico has a very misogynistic culture. Sex trafficking is one of the worst things to happen to a person. Illegal immigration just perpetuates these crimes. Crime bosses transport their drugs, guns, and women (some kidnapped around the world) over our border. I think shutting the border would decrease these problems. Mexico is out of control, we can help to limit these crimes by enforcing and closing our border. There would be no brothel if it wasn't to serve the illegal aliens. These crimes fester and evolve, eventually creating new problems and growing into money making operations. often times these crimes go unnoticed because these border patrols have their hands full, and no one seems to want to broach the topic.