Slave Next Door (46 page)

site workers inhabited a single trailer for $70 per person, per week.”

The workers suffered from a number of maladies—sprains, cuts,

bruises, stomach problems—for which they got no medical help,

“despite being close to medical facilities on the same bases they were

cleaning and helping to rebuild.”33 And, after several weeks on the job,

the workers were turned out into the street without ever having received

their pay.

On learning of the abuses on our Gulf Coast bases, Louisiana Senator

Mary Landrieu commented, “It is a downright shame that any contrac-

tor would use this tragedy as an opportunity to line its pockets by break-

ing the law and hiring a low-skilled, low-wage and undocumented work

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 218

2 1 8 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

force.”34 But exactly what law were they breaking? Here’s where the line

blurs. Isn’t this, awful though it might be, simply a case of worker

exploitation and not human trafficking? As we know, the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act (TVPA), in defining trafficking, calls for the pres-

ence of force, fraud, or coercion. And without clear evidence of force,

fraud, and coercion, prosecutors rarely bring a case into court. So where

is the evidence of forced labor, the pressure that denied the workers the

right to leave to seek other employment? In Lovato’s article, a single sen-

tence states that the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance “received

phone calls from several Latino workers who complained they were

denied, under threat of deportation, the right to leave the base at Belle

Chasse.”35 Could this take us from a case of worker abuse into the realm

of modern-day slavery? Possibly, but it would require more evidence. We

know that the workers were undocumented, so deportation could

indeed have been a viable threat. But in what context was it made? Were

they truly unable to simply walk away, despite being threatened with

return to their own country? The short term of their confinement, if

they were in fact held against their will, could lead a jury—and a

prosecutor—to dismiss the idea that this was true slavery, especially in

the light of several recent cases in which people were kept in bondage

for years. Given the federal government’s reluctance to take on possible

trafficking cases that aren’t surefire wins, this probably wouldn’t make it

to court.

As Laura Germino of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers says,

“Slavery doesn’t happen in isolation.”36 It is generally part of a sequence

of many abuses. In retrospect, perhaps “Gulf Coast Slaves” is a reason-

ably accurate title for Lovato’s article; then again, perhaps it is too pre-

sumptive for an article that chronicles a situation of egregious worker

exploitation, made possible in part by the federal government but falling

just outside the legal definition of human trafficking. In time, as more

cases are uncovered and prosecuted, it is to be hoped that the definition

of slavery will become less blurred. What is clear is that when the gov-

ernment suspends basic worker protections and gives a free hand to

contractors behind a smokescreen of “national security,” people will be

abused, cheated, demeaned, and, potentially, enslaved. The lesson of

Iraq and Katrina seems to be that while America professes to abhor

slavery, in an emergency anything goes, including the denial of funda-

mental human dignities. That this would be the case is disturbing given

the large number of federal workers now deployed in the fight against

trafficking and slavery.

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 219

T H E F E D S / 2 1 9

S O M E O F T H E K I N G ’ S M E N

Who specifically forms the national battle line in the war against slavery

in America? The federal government has no shortage of agencies

addressing human trafficking. Our intention here is not to examine each

agency and department but rather to focus on those that are most

directly involved in fighting trafficking.37

The Depar tment of Health and Human Services

When victims of human trafficking and slavery are found, the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is supposed to help

them out. As the State Department explains:

HHS is responsible for certifying foreign victims of human trafficking

once they are identified. HHS issues certification letters for adult non-U.S.

citizens to confer eligibility for certain benefits and services under any

Federal or state program or activity to the same extent as a refugee.

Benefits and services include: housing or shelter assistance, food assis-

tance, income assistance, employment assistance, English language train-

ing, health care assistance, mental health services and assistance for

victims of torture. HHS issues similar letters of eligibility for non-U.S.

child victims of human trafficking (under age 18), who are immediately

eligible for services and benefits to the same extent as refugees, once HHS

has received proof that the child is a victim of trafficking. HHS funding

focuses on TIP [Trafficking in Persons] victim assistance and increasing

awareness and identification of foreign and internally trafficked victims in

the United States. HHS funds the Rescue & Restore public awareness

campaign and the National Human Trafficking Resource Center with an

information hotline at 888–373–7888.38

T H E H A N D T H AT G I V E T H — O R N O T

In the antitrafficking world, HHS is the agency most involved in build-

ing coalitions among, and affiliations with, NGOs. HHS is a vast

agency; with its approximately fifty thousand employees, it ranks as the

second largest, just behind the Department of Defense.39 As the State

Department description indicates, HHS is largely responsible for the

allocation of funding to the various NGOs working in the field of

human trafficking. As such, the agency has come in for a lot of criticism,

both because of the organizations chosen—and not chosen—to receive

the money and because of the policies and procedures for the allocation

and distribution of funds. The controversy takes us back to the thorny

question of prostitution.

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 220

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

A section added to the 2003 law reauthorizing the TVPA requires

that NGOs wishing to receive—or
continue
to receive—federal funding

sign a statement that they do not “promote, support or advocate the

legalization or practice of prostitution.” Some NGOs never deal with

sex trafficking cases; nonetheless, they are obliged to sign or go

unfunded. Of the organizations who do offer services to victims of traf-

ficking and forced prostitution, many also provide services to “sex

workers” of all kinds, some who would describe themselves as volun-

tary. In such cases, the requirement seems contradictory. Some NGOs

have likened the provision to a witch-hunt, others to a violation of the

right of free speech. Since there is no federal antiprostitution law with

the exception of the Mann Act, it is difficult to understand how “pro-

moting” or “supporting” any nonviolent policy can lead to a denial of

participation in a government program under the First Amendment.

Though the controversy concerns prostitution, the principle concerns

free speech. If this pattern were reflected in other areas of debate, then

environmental groups could be denied governmental participation or

funding for “promoting” the idea of global warming and schools could

have their funding cut for “supporting” the theory of evolution.

However, Vanessa Garza, associate director for trafficking policy in

HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), responds that the provi-

sion is neither outrageous nor inappropriate: “The money is a gift from

the American people, and we have to make sure it goes to the right

people.” She adds, “The government places conditions on funding all

the time; this is just one among many. Our goal is to rescue victims of

human trafficking, and the administration feels prostitution is an

enabler. The policy is in place to protect the organizations. They don’t

have to sign it; they just won’t get the money. If you take government

funding, you have to play by the government rules. We have this little pot

of money, and it’s our job to make sure the best organizations get it.”40

Steve Wagner, who was director of HHS’s Human Trafficking Program

from 2003 to 2006, feels very strongly that the requirement is essential

to recognizing prostitution as a form of trafficking. He sees the provi-

sion as “totally appropriate. If you don’t get the exploitation here, you

don’t belong in the antitrafficking business.”41

Another bone of contention for a large number of NGOs is the change

in the funding procedures. In the past grants were awarded to a range of

service providers, but in 2005 HHS went to a per capita system—so

much money allocated per victim helped. According to Vanessa Garza,

the government’s initial approach was to throw money at the problem:

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 221

T H E F E D S / 2 2 1

“In the beginning, we were funding organizations that never found a

victim; now we’re putting our money into servicing victims and tailoring

case management to the victims’ needs.”42 Says Steve Wagner, who was

director at the time the decision to go to a per capita system was made,

“The system I inherited involved a series of grants both to provide serv-

ices to victims and to do some vague community outreach. I found this

to be extremely insufficient.” The grants, says Wagner, had nothing to do

with the caseloads. “We had agencies with more victims than they could

handle, and more than they were provided for,” while others “were

receiving money and didn’t have a single case. There was no incentive for

grantees or [other] organizations . . . to go out and find victims.” Wagner

states that at the time he took office he was “distressed at the lack of

accountability” and assumed the per capita system would “incentivize”

NGOs and create its own automatic accountability: if you brought in a

victim, you got the money. When an official at the agency who chose to

remain anonymous was asked why HHS didn’t go to a hybrid system,

which would have automatically continued the grant money to organi-

zations with real caseloads while cutting or putting on the per capita

system those without trafficking victims, the official replied, “Ask Steve

Wagner.” Says Wagner, “The per capita system was the only way we

could achieve our objective. With a hybrid system, certain incumbents

would be given noncompetitive grants because of caseloads. We would

be put in the position of picking a priori who the grantees would be. The

per capita system makes it an empirical issue. Besides,” he adds, “I’m

not convinced there
were
grantees who had a caseload that justified the

extent of their grant.”43 A number of NGOs who had viable caseloads

and who lost funding take exception.

But how is the per capita system working out? Although Wagner

states, “I’m out of it; I don’t know how it’s working,” he acknowledges

that the “number of victims found and certified during my time was

small, and it’s inadequate now. The per capita system, as I envisioned it,

is not a ‘silver bullet.’ It’s very disappointing. I thought there’d be a

tremendous proliferation of agencies receiving help, and correspond-

ingly, there would be a large number of victims. . . . I was hoping we

were moving towards some sort of breakthrough; that may still be the

case. There’s a certain inevitability to a breakthrough.”44

While it is true that some NGOs served more victims than others and

that there was considerable fiscal waste, the per capita policy had a neg-

ative impact on many victim service organizations. This system puts the

onus on the NGO to go out and find trafficking victims, which, they say,

Bales_Ch09 2/23/09 11:03 AM Page 222

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

is not really their job. They argue that this should be done by state,

county, and local law enforcement, who are in a much better position—

and have an obligation—to investigate and uncover trafficking cases.

Many service providers and victim advocates feel that the fiscal pres-

sure to leave their service role in order to “bring in” victims is a wrong-

headed approach that hurts everyone in the long run—including

victims. With the per capita approach, several organizations that previ-

ously had viable caseloads have had to reduce both staff and services. In

some cases, they have simply closed their doors.45 Garza echoes the

department line that both law enforcement agencies and NGOs should

work toward finding victims of trafficking. The police can benefit from

NGO tips and help in “bringing them forward.” She also concedes,

however, that through the per capita system “Some good NGOs were

penalized.” Garza, who inherited the system from Wagner, admits,