Htydjtk

In the state I live there are some measures being discussed that are meant to combat human trafficking. A couple of the ones I've heard are:

1. One is to close down illicit massage parlors




2. Another is for hotel workers to report suspected victims of human trafficking (who are likely underage)

Now, I've heard that there is some controversy to these suggestions. Some say that 1 will force victims out onto the streets and into more dangerous situations. I don't understand this objection as I had imagined that shutting down the shop would include rescue.

An objection to 2 I heard was that 2 would put victims at higher risk of retribution from traffickers, and that it should only be done with the consent of the victim. This too I do not understand, as I thought there would be discretion on part of the law and that victims might have a hard time speaking up.

Could someone explain the measures and the objections further? Some of these come from advocacy groups and while I value their insight and respect their work I have a hard time fully understanding. I don't know how to ask but I would also appreciate hearing any other aspects of the debate too

For case 1, the unstated assumptions are that prostitution will take place regardless of the government's attempts to stop it, and even if there are illicit massage parlors populated with victims of human trafficking, there are also illicit massage parlors with voluntary prostitutes. The voluntary prostitutes will not be "rescued" because, they don't need "rescuing" and if they keep doing sex work they will do it elsewhere. There are many values of "elsewhere" more dangerous for the prostitute and less desirable for society than an illicit massage parlor, e.g. city streets.

For case 2, most mandatory reporting laws require that the mandatory reporter's personally identifying information be taken and made available. This information may be published to other law enforcement personnel and may appear in court documents depending on how a case proceeds. The reporter therefore can be subject to intimidation. Also, if you know who the reporter is, it is a trivial exercise for a criminal organization to determine when and where that person works and therefore determine who is likely to be the victim that caused the report to be filed.

One issue with the second proposal as you've phrased it is that hotel workers run the gamut from cleaners to managers; is every hotel worker supposed to get training on recognizing human trafficking at a glance? How effective is that training, in reality?

I imagine many hotels have high turnover rates, so I would expect the industry to object on the cost of training all employees to spot human trafficking.

Third, I would also expect the industry to be reticent to start accusing their patrons of human trafficking - especially those with wealthy clientele - even if they don't state it publicly. Imagine the media storm if a Hilton accused a parent of trafficking based on the skin color and appearance of their adopted child.

The measures you're describing don't target trafficking, but sex work. They mean that sex workers will move away from high-visibility areas where they're less likely to come to harm but are more likely to be noticed by the authorities, and into more dangerous situations.

For example, if they can't work out of hotels without getting arrested for being a victim of trafficking (and yes, despite being the ostensible victim, they're often arrested), then they'll bring their clients back to their houses instead, with obvious risks if a client feels entitled to more than is being offered.

Sex workers are more likely to turn to any source of protection, which will lead to them being more likely to be trafficked.

All of this is also ignoring the fact that most trafficking victims in the US are not sex workers but domestic staff. It's attacking the wrong problem and then using the worst possible approach to do so.

Another is for hotel workers to report suspected victims of human trafficking (who are likely underage)

To add to the other answers, one problem with this is that is causes severe problems for people with uncommon family structures that frequently can resemble human trafficking to well-meaning, but untrained, people. This is particularly a problem for people who had adopted children of a different race or people whose children don't look very much like them.

Young black men tend to fit a stereotype of a human trafficker more than a middle-aged white person would. So a young black man with a daughter who looks white may be reported to police while a middle-aged white man with a daughter who looks white may not be. These kinds of events are often not handled particularly well be police and there are some horror stories involving children separated from their parents and interrogated in ways that severely affected them.

The problem is simply that people whose families just happen to resemble untrained people's stereotypes of human trafficking will wind up having unpleasant encounters with police in situations involving them and their small children. It's like police stopping people who "don't look like they belong in this neighborhood", but worse.

Will specific employees be trained in recognizing actual signs of human trafficking or coerced sex work and accurately reply their suspicions to police? Or will every employee be told to report anything they think as suspicious, based on their personal life experiences and biases about what a family looks like, in a way that doesn't accurately convey the possibility of innocent explanations? The former might be unobjectionable, but the fear is that we'll actually get the latter.