Slave Next Door (44 page)

the efforts of the various federal agencies to uncover trafficking cases,

prosecute traffickers, and assist survivors, “it was understood at the time

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 208

2 0 8 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

of drafting the legislation that the TVPA was insufficient to prosecute all

human trafficking operations throughout the United States.” The federal

government acknowledged that state and local authorities were the like-

liest to locate and identify instances of trafficking at the community level.

Therefore, it was imperative that state and local law enforcement agen-

cies be armed with the appropriate statutes to prosecute these cases

within their own borders. This, states Farrell, was the federal govern-

ment’s understanding and intention when they framed the 2000 law.53 A

parallel can be drawn with another serious felony—kidnapping.

Kidnapping and human trafficking share certain characteristics, prima-

rily the violent control exercised over the victim. Every state has a law

against kidnapping, as does the federal government; there is no debate

about whether states should have their own kidnapping statutes.

R A I S I N G T H E M O R A L B A N N E R . . . A G A I N

The antiprostitution movement has influenced states’ efforts to activate

trafficking legislation in much the same way that it has been lobbying

Congress for changes in the federal laws. Says Amy Farrell, “The limited

research to date on human trafficking policymaking and legislation sug-

gests advocacy organizations specifically concerned with commercial

sex trafficking and child prostitution called upon political elites to

address the perceived growing threat of exploitation.”54 State legislators

have likely been responding as well to newspaper stories on human traf-

ficking. A review of 1,350 news articles for the period 1990–2006 that

use the phrase
human trafficking
or
trafficking in persons
points to an

increased emphasis on sex trafficking. The review focused on articles

relating to “sex trafficking,” “labor trafficking,” and “sex and labor

trafficking.” While there was an increased overall recognition of the

trafficking problem, media coverage was “dominated by articles focused

explicitly on sex trafficking.” The stories’ common theme featured

young women and girls “forced into prostitution by conspiracies of

foreign organized criminal networks.”55

Over several years the number of articles on all forms of trafficking

grew moderately, but in the mid- to late 1990s sex trafficking articles

increased dramatically. Whereas the number of articles on sex traffick-

ing, labor trafficking, and a combination of the two ran fairly even until

around 1995, after that year media coverage of sex trafficking took off.

By 2000 sex trafficking articles were increasing rapidly, and in 2006 they

were practically off the chart—while the number of labor trafficking

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 209

S TAT E S O F C O N F U S I O N / 2 0 9

articles remained relatively flat and even showed a downturn. This

trend, along with abolitionist lobbying, is likely to have had an effect on

legislators when they framed trafficking laws.56

Some statutes include a “findings” section, naming the type of traf-

ficking the legislators see as specific to their state; Nebraska named

prostitution. The 2006 Nebraska antitrafficking law states, “Increasing

prostitution in Nebraska has become harmful to communities and

neighborhoods, often contributing to both incidents of crime and fear

of crime.” The Nebraska law ostensibly addresses both labor and sex

trafficking; nonetheless, the “findings section is specific to prostitution

and commercial sex.”57

As in the TVPA and the DOJ model, forced prostitution of minors is a

major component of most state trafficking laws. In seeking a broad defi-

nition of the crime of trafficking, says Lou de Baca, the federal govern-

ment turned their gaze to prostituted children, and the states followed

suit. “Typically, state cases are just repackaging of what once were cate-

gorized as child prostitution. By conflating child prostitution with traf-

ficking in the 2000 TVPA, we’ve created low-hanging fruit—easy crimes

to detect and to prosecute. It’s really old wine in new bottles.”58

O F B L I N D M E N A N D E L E P H A N T S

There are several angles from which the states should examine, or reex-

amine, slavery and human trafficking: as an issue of immigration, crime,

human rights, national security, economic justice—or all of the above.

Framing a single statute to encompass them all is a daunting challenge.

Of the roughly two-thirds of the states that have made the leap and

passed antitrafficking laws, a few address a wide range of issues well,

some are more issue specific and “morally” inclined, and some shoot

considerably wide of the mark.

It is gratifying that most of the states have rallied and, in a very short

time, have initiated, supported, and passed laws outlawing slavery

within their borders. And if there is always room for improvement, there

is also the sense that as living, breathing things the laws can grow and

improve with increased knowledge and experience. But just passing a

law doesn’t necessarily entitle the state legislators to feel that they’ve

done all they could to fight human trafficking. For one thing, it is evi-

dent that few states have thought beyond the criminalizing of human

trafficking to address the vital issue of victim care and services. Yes, it is

essential to catch and punish traffickers, but that is only one part of the

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 210

2 1 0 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

equation. The list of things needed by—and owed to—the victims must

not be ignored or dismissed. If a state law excludes the victims of human

trafficking, the law should be changed to encompass them. Now that

the state legislators have assumed the DOJ’s aggressive position on the

actual crime of trafficking, they should take a page from the Freedom

Network, or Polaris Project, or any of hundreds of organizations that

provide care and services to America’s slaves, and should make their

laws more victim centered.

Some practical issues are inherent in widening the scope of the state

laws. As Farrell points out, “External factors beyond problem defini-

tion . . . may facilitate or hamper the passage of more comprehensive leg-

islation.” The more extensive the list of provisions, the greater the

likelihood of delays and disappointments in committee. And the wider

the range of proposed services—training, outreach, victim services—the

greater the likelihood of fiscal competition with other state priorities.

States have limited budgets and political agendas, and the issue of

modern slavery is comparatively new. It is unrealistic to presume that the

lion’s share of the money would go to human trafficking legislation.59

In framing their laws, the state legislatures should also include mon-

itoring programs. The absence of viable research data must be

addressed. While the passage of state laws is a laudable first step, the

only way to ascertain their success is to “monitor and understand how

legislative mandates are translated into action.”60 A system of tracking

the actual implementation of the state laws is needed. The Center for

Women Policy Studies’ “Report Card” and Farrell’s paper “State

Human Trafficking Legislation” are tremendously helpful, but ulti-

mately they will suffer from the same pitfall that afflicts all research

material in dealing with topical issues: they will soon be outdated.

Research, to be relevant, must stay current.

There is no doubt that ultimately every state will pass anti–human

trafficking legislation. But it’s better to do it right than to do it right

now. There is considerable merit to Leslie Wolfe’s suggestion that the

states take the time—and use the right resources—to explore and under-

stand the issue in its entirety before passing a law. As Finckenauer and

Liu suggest, “State policy makers should proceed cautiously and judi-

ciously in considering anti-trafficking legislation. Symbolic actions

should be avoided. And it should be recognized that half-way measures

may well be worse than no measures at all.”61

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 211

9

T H E F E D S

It is important to look at the federal government’s actions—both

positive and negative—in its relatively new war against human traf-

ficking in America. Many federal officials have taken on the task of

rooting out and prosecuting traffickers, as well as coordinating with

service providers and victim advocates providing care for survivors.

We’ll speak with representatives of some of the federal agencies whose

job description has been expanded to include modern-day slavery and

get a sense of how they feel the campaign is going. We’ll also examine

some cases that seem to stand in direct contradiction to the antitraf-

ficking position taken by the government—cases in which administra-

tion politics and inaction have actually increased human trafficking on

American soil—both here and abroad. One of the worst of these cases

involves taxpayer money supporting slavery as part of Operation Iraqi

Freedom.

B R I N G I N G D E M O C R A C Y T O I R A Q — O N T H E B A C K S

O F S L AV E S

First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co., a billion-dollar con-

struction company, was hired to build the new U.S. Embassy in

Baghdad—after no American company would agree to the govern-

ment’s terms.1 The project is worth $592 million to First Kuwaiti and

encompasses a 104-acre, twenty-one-building complex, making it the

largest U.S. embassy in the world. When completed, it will be six times

larger than the United Nations and the same size as Vatican City.2

From the beginning First Kuwaiti had difficulty in fulfilling the terms

of its contract. Serious problems piled up: faulty wiring, fuel leaks,

and poor construction. Some of the problems were determined to be

“life safety issues.” And while the day-to-day firefight was going on

in Baghdad, a war of words was being waged between the State

2 1 1

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 212

2 1 2 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

Department in Washington, who defended their contractors, and those

on the ground in Iraq, who were suffering from substandard work and

delays.3

Boondoggles, pork barrels, and shoddy work are scandalous, but it

was another, uglier issue that brought First Kuwaiti to the world’s atten-

tion. Some of their contract workers had been trafficked to Iraq against

their will, held by force, and paid little or nothing. First Kuwaiti—and

by association, the U.S. Department of State—were using slave labor to

build the embassy. Taxpayers were footing the bill. The idea of a U.S.

subcontractor trafficking enslaved workers into the country where we

are waging a war to introduce freedom and democracy is disturbing. Yet

in case after case the construction company hired workers, normally

through subcontractors, from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Sierra

Leone, Egypt, Turkey, and the Philippines under false pretenses.

Promised work in Dubai—indeed, their boarding passes for the flight to

Iraq actually
read
Dubai—they landed in a combat zone. Once the

workers were in Iraq, contractors confiscated their passports and forced

them to live in squalid conditions and work long hours for little or no

pay. And, says journalist David Phinney, “It was all happening smack in

the middle of the US-controlled Green Zone—right under the nose of

the State Department.”4

The issue came to light after the murder of twelve Nepali workers

who had been “recruited under false pretenses from rural villages . . .

before being trafficked illegally into Iraq.” En route to a U.S. base in

Iraq, all twelve were kidnapped and executed by insurgents. The sub-

contractor had “sent them into the war zone, and along one of the

most dangerous roads in the world, in what basically amounted to taxi

cabs.” Ali Kamel al-Nadi, the man who allegedly assembled the

unprotected caravan, commented when asked about the incident, “If

they were my workers, maybe I should be compensated for losing

them.”5

Though foreign workers had been complaining of abuses since

early 2003, the problem was first flagged in a news report in late

2005. The report provoked a flurry of base inspections by the gov-

ernment. In April 2006, the Pentagon, without naming any of the

subcontractors to Halliburton/KBR, concluded that “doing business

in this way” was common in Iraq and Afghanistan.6 The confiscation

of workers’ passports kept the laborers from leaving Iraq, the report

stated, or from seeking jobs with other contractors. No penalties were

assigned to the contractors. Nonetheless, the Pentagon ordered that