Police-judicial cooperation policy and human trafficking enforcement

1 Police-Judicial Cooperation to Address Human Trafficking The police of police-judicial cooperation to address human trafficking is designed to stop the human trafficking industry—much like the police-judicial cooperation is meant to stop drug trafficking. As anyone can see, the war on drugs has not been won and is not likely to ever be won—and there are good reasons for that. The same is true of the new war on human trafficking. To understand what is really going on and what the real aims of this policy is one has to look behind the scenes and look with a critical eye. Not every policy is designed to do what it aims to do on the surface of things. Sometimes, or perhaps even oftentimes, there is an ulterior motive that relates to a much larger objective of government—which is totalitarian control. The stated goal of police-judicial cooperation to address human trafficking is simply to make it easier for law enforcement officers to combat human trafficking. The policy was developed based on data—mainly derived from qualitative studies (Goodey, 2008). The logic behind how the policy operates is that when police and the courts coordinate more efficiently law enforcement can acquire the warrants they need to conduct searches and stop human traffickers from succeeding in their nefarious aims and intentions. The policy is supposed to achieve its goals because it means fewer delays and fewer delays mean more efficient police work. What does the data say? An empirical review of evaluations of the policy indicates that police do not really take it seriously (Clawson, Dutch & Cummings, 2006). Police seem hardly to recognize that human trafficking is even a problem. Clawson et al. (2006) lament this fact and argue that, obviously, police need more training. But is it so? Is that really what is wrong here? Perhaps there is another way to look at all this. The standard argument for policies like this in which human trafficking is targeted is that those who are trafficked are victims and are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves and they need the government to save them. This logic is applied across the board universally—anyone migrant who is caught doing unauthorized work (such as sex work, or domestic service, or construction work) is a victim—and an illegal. One can feel sorry for them because they have been victimized—but all the same they do not belong here and must go back. That is the gist of the matter for most who get concerned about the immorality of human trafficking (such an ugly name—“human trafficking”—how could anyone possibly justify it? Well, one can try…). Indeed, there are those who see another side to this issue. They see those same migrants not as victims but as people who want to do some kind of work—whether it is sex or manual—and are willing to go do it in another country under the radar. They see these individuals as people who are in control of their own lives, making their own decisions, and choosing what is best for them based on what they have going on around them. They see the crackdown by the government as invasive and controlling and even as xenophobic. My opinion? Those people are right. This human trafficking policy stinks. And here is why. It is not surprising that law enforcement officers tend to take human trafficking less seriously than some members of the public. As Goodey (2008) points out, the data on human trafficking is “sketchy” at best (p. 421). The fact is that every policy that has been developed on human trafficking is based on qualitative reports from victims of trafficking collected by NGOs (non-governmental organizations—that all too often end up being fronts for government agencies). What is the end game of all this qualitative data collection that gets used to develop policies? The end game, according to critics of human trafficking policies, is that it is an attempt by government to deter self-determination of individuals from backgrounds that governments want to deprive of opportunities (Lam & Lepp, 2019). To really understand what the critics of these policies are getting at it is important to understand what human trafficking really is. Human trafficking is routinely described by the government in the worst terms possible. The government describes it as something in which women are sold into sex slavery, in which children are abducted and sold into labor or sex slavery, and so on. It is a depiction of vulnerable populations helplessly being exploited and abused (De Shalit, Heynen & Van Der Meulen, 2014). Yet what facts does anyone really have to go on? If this problem is so pervasive—as it is often told to us, even in the US—why then do law enforcement officers seem so nonchalant about it? The reason is because the data is just as Goodey (2008) describes it—sketchy. The reality is that those who are “trafficked” are actually looking for work voluntarily, whether it is in the sex industry or in labor. They see it is an opportunity to make something of themselves—an opportunity that does not exist where they come from. Thus, laborers will come from Mexico to find work in the US—but if they are caught during the transfer they are told they are victims of human trafficking (and then they are treated as criminals, ironically). If they are women working in a sex trade, they are treated the same way—first as victims then as criminals (Lam & Lepp, 2019). Law enforcement officers fail to take any of the data on human trafficking seriously because they know with their own eyes what they see on the streets and who they encounter in their line of work (Clawson et al., 2006; Farrell, McDevitt & Fahy, 2008). They see behind the data based on sketchy figures and qualitative findings put out by “non-governmental” governmental agencies. At the end of the day, it is all about control. Governments want to regulate and constrain the movement of human populations. They do not want people doing any unauthorized work—no matter what kind it is. The label of human trafficking, which is applied in order to justify government policies, is not one that reflects the reality for the majority of people associated with the human trafficking industry. Does this mean there is not an ugly and morally repugnant side to human trafficking that does not involve people who get trafficked against their will? Not at all. Of course there are going to be legitimate victims—and there are—but to suggest or imply or believe that all people who migrate from one place to another to find work in whatever industry they choose for whatever pay they can get are all victims is absurd. Many of these people see it as an opportunity for themselves—even if it is one that others see as exploitative. If they want to do the work for the agreed upon circumstances, why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so? Why develop policies and focus on police-judicial cooperation that only further exacerbates the lives of these people and further restricts their opportunities? In the name of reform and morality, governments often end up doing more harm than good. Just look at the era of Prohibition in the US. Prohibition lasted throughout the 1920s, and prior to Prohibition the criminal underworld was a relatively low key operation. When liquor was prohibited in the US, organized crime became exponentially more organized. Criminal families and dynasties gained immeasurable influence and power—not just in the criminal underworld but also in government because in doing so it was easier for them to control the policies that enabled the conditions for their operations to flourish in a lucrative manner. Prohibition was the best thing that ever happened for the criminal underworld. Something that people wanted was abolished by the state—so they all had to become criminals to get it since they weren’t going to stop just because the state told them to. The same goes for sex or cheap labor or whatever it is people want: just because the government comes down with its heavy-handed morality doesn’t mean everyone involved is going to hang their heads in shame and stop. If the government wants to outlaw prostitution, what does that mean? It means the prostitutes go underground just as the liquor sellers did in the 1920s. People are not going to stop paying for sex just because the government tells them it is not allowed. No government in the history of governments has ever succeeded in changing human nature and no government ever will. Human nature is here to stay, and governments would be wise to realize that fact. Crafting de-humanizing policies based on sketchy data that is molded for political purposes is not what governments should be doing. Police are right to act aloof. Of course they may be unintended consequences to all this—but we’re not supposed to think about them. Instead, we’re supposed to think about how noble and heroic we are being by cracking down on human trafficking. Never mind the fact that many of these people have chosen to be “trafficked” because they want the money, they see it as a better opportunity, and it is simply the best option available to them where they come from (Lam & Lepp, 2019). What happens to them when the law comes cracking down? They get arrested. They get detained. They get deported. That life they sought—it gets taken away from them. People complain today about Trump’s war on immigrants. What do they think the war on human trafficking is about? The public doesn’t think about any of this because the public is convinced that the war on human trafficking is a good thing—just as it used to be convinced that the war on drugs was a good thing—or that the war on alcohol was a good thing. Gradually, the lies about these wars are exposed and people realize what was really going on. The stakeholders that truly matter in this policy are the ones hurt most by it—the so-called victims of human trafficking. They are the ones who are prevented from doing the work they came here to do for the agreed upon price. They are the ones prevented from a life of self-determination because of some self-righteous bureaucratic policy that is meant to make the government look like it cares when in reality it cares only about its own control over the lives of every living human being. Want to open your small business? Too bad. There is a flu going around. Shut it down. Want to be a sex worker? Too bad. That’s human trafficking. You’re a victim. Shut it down. This is where all these policies go. They go to dictating what you or anyone else can do or can be. The best policy at this point is no policy. The police are right to be lackadaisical about human trafficking. Clawson et al. (2006) are wrong to lament their nonchalance. Human beings have a right to be who they want to be—regardless of how government interprets their actions. Yes, some may be legitimate victims—but by no means all. Most are voluntary workers. Most want the work. Most should be left alone to pursue that life in a world that lets them have so few other options.