NFL team owner Robert Kraft was swept up in a bust of a sex-trafficking day spa

[Tom Sawyer]

Show me the doors that lock only from the outside. Show me bruises and other injuries. Show me the passports of multiple girls being taken and return of them refused. Show me fearful girls, afraid of their managers. Show me accusations from the victims.

There are many good indicators and evidence of trafficking people against their will. This one is a good one but is not conclusive. I would not convict on it alone, and it would seem nor would the court (if the post above claiming a passport was taken is true).

Also, why do you direct this question to me and not to Loren?

Because your position on it was the one that I found odd, for the reasons I specified. That was kind of the entire rationale of specifying them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tom did ask a good question though, Loren. Why else would they hold the passports if not an attempt to control these women? Could be identity theft I guess. Could be other things. But trafficking sure does seem to top the list to me. As I said above, it isn't conclusive, but its pretty good evidence.

I do agree it's an attempt to control them. It's a useful tactic if they are illegals, it's nowhere near strong enough if they are truly trafficked. Hence I see that as more evidence they are simply here illegally.

 

[ronburgundy]

Tom did ask a good question though, Loren. Why else would they hold the passports if not an attempt to control these women? Could be identity theft I guess. Could be other things. But trafficking sure does seem to top the list to me. As I said above, it isn't conclusive, but its pretty good evidence.

I do agree it's an attempt to control them. It's a useful tactic if they are illegals, it's nowhere near strong enough if they are truly trafficked. Hence I see that as more evidence they are simply here illegally.

If they are doing it to control them, then that is coercion and thus trafficking. If fact, if they simply threatened to report them being here illegally, that is trafficking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tom did ask a good question though, Loren. Why else would they hold the passports if not an attempt to control these women? Could be identity theft I guess. Could be other things. But trafficking sure does seem to top the list to me. As I said above, it isn't conclusive, but its pretty good evidence.

I do agree it's an attempt to control them. It's a useful tactic if they are illegals, it's nowhere near strong enough if they are truly trafficked. Hence I see that as more evidence they are simply here illegally.

If they are doing it to control them, then that is coercion and thus trafficking. If fact, if they simply threatened to report them being here illegally, that is trafficking.

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Why would they be concerned about illegals other than illegals they traffic?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Why would they be concerned about illegals other than illegals they traffic?

They could have smuggled them here without them being trafficked.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Why would they be concerned about illegals other than illegals they traffic?

They could have smuggled them here without them being trafficked.

And they could be kind and courteous gentlemen who are simply holding onto ladies' bags for them and are only keeping their passports in the same sense that they're keeping their lip gloss and snack food.

It would be really fucking stupid for someone to think that this is the case, but in an infinite set of universes, it would probably happen at least once.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

 

[Toni]

If they are doing it to control them, then that is coercion and thus trafficking. If fact, if they simply threatened to report them being here illegally, that is trafficking.

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Coercion proves rape.

 

[Toni]

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

Some individuals confiscate the passports of their domestic/household employees as a means of controlling them. It is particularly effective when the employees speak minimal or no English and come from countries where police are seen as objects of fear rather than protectors. It is a well known practice among a certain set of foreign nationals—but some Americans do this as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Why would they be concerned about illegals other than illegals they traffic?

They could have smuggled them here without them being trafficked.

Officer, I'm only smuggled the drugs across the border, I didn't traffic them.

 

[Toni]

Tom did ask a good question though, Loren. Why else would they hold the passports if not an attempt to control these women? Could be identity theft I guess. Could be other things. But trafficking sure does seem to top the list to me. As I said above, it isn't conclusive, but its pretty good evidence.

I do agree it's an attempt to control them. It's a useful tactic if they are illegals, it's nowhere near strong enough if they are truly trafficked. Hence I see that as more evidence they are simply here illegally.

Smuggling human beings is a primary characteristic of trafficking.

Add in confiscation of passports, which as you admit is an effort to control (and I will add, an extremely effective tool to control)

Make it difficult for persons to freely leave the place of employment and to have all of their movements outside of the place of business under the control of other employees/business owners

Move these persons periodically, without their consent or input or control

And it really is trafficking. Especially when you consider that they are moved from site to site at the employer's/owner's will and to hide the nature of the business model and also to control the 'employees'/slaves. Because, really that's what you are talking about: persons with so little control over their work or life conditions, places of work/domicile, ability to move, coupled with extremely poor compensation and high rates of 'rent' and 'transportation' and so on and what you really have are slaves that you can throw a few bucks at once in a while and you can make disappear whenever you want by moving them to a different location--or by killing them. Simply moving them often enough that they aren't able to develop a special relationship with clients is probably enough, though.

Trafficking is notoriously difficult to prove because it is notoriously difficult to get witnesses who are moved frequently and who may or may not have much proficiency in English, may come from an area where police are notoriously corrupt, meaning they have little reason to trust the police and given threats against family members back home, it's pretty hard to locate victims or to get them to testify.

Trafficking happens with Americans, too. Usually very young girls who are runaways. I suspect also young boys but I have read much less about that. Girls are often first befriended, then perhaps seduced, offered protection, and if they 'act up,' the threats begin. Against them, sometimes against family back home. They have little access to money, little freedom of movement. Little control over any aspect of their lives. They are moved from place to place: trafficked.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

Some individuals confiscate the passports of their domestic/household employees as a means of controlling them. It is particularly effective when the employees speak minimal or no English and come from countries where police are seen as objects of fear rather than protectors. It is a well known practice among a certain set of foreign nationals—but some Americans do this as well.

Ya, I was checking the actual law about this and the rule is that the employer cannot require the "employee" to give them their passports, but they can hold onto it for them if it's voluntarily given for safekeeping. This is an insane rule, particularly given all the coercive methods used to stop trafficking victims from testifying against their slavers. It requires actual testimony against them from the slaves which is something that cannot be relied upon.

 

[Toni]

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

Some individuals confiscate the passports of their domestic/household employees as a means of controlling them. It is particularly effective when the employees speak minimal or no English and come from countries where police are seen as objects of fear rather than protectors. It is a well known practice among a certain set of foreign nationals—but some Americans do this as well.

Ya, I was checking the actual law about this and the rule is that the employer cannot require the "employee" to give them their passports, but they can hold onto it for them if it's voluntarily given for safekeeping. This is an insane rule, particularly given all the coercive methods used to stop trafficking victims from testifying against their slavers. It requires actual testimony against them from the slaves which is something that cannot be relied upon.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If they are doing it to control them, then that is coercion and thus trafficking. If fact, if they simply threatened to report them being here illegally, that is trafficking.

No. Coercion doesn't prove trafficking. It makes much more sense as keeping illegals in check than keeping trafficked women in check.

Coercion proves rape.

If they are coerced into sex yes.

- - - Updated - - -

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

Some individuals confiscate the passports of their domestic/household employees as a means of controlling them. It is particularly effective when the employees speak minimal or no English and come from countries where police are seen as objects of fear rather than protectors. It is a well known practice among a certain set of foreign nationals—but some Americans do this as well.

And that's not good. But that's also not all cases of somebody holding somebody elses passport.

 

[Toni]

Coercion proves rape.

If they are coerced into sex yes.

- - - Updated - - -

As I wrote above, somebody held my passport for safe keeping last time I was visiting the Philippines. Passports are important not to lose. People may put passports in a safe place when working in a place like this, which may mean the boss' office or safe or whatever. The question would be if they were forced to do so.

Some individuals confiscate the passports of their domestic/household employees as a means of controlling them. It is particularly effective when the employees speak minimal or no English and come from countries where police are seen as objects of fear rather than protectors. It is a well known practice among a certain set of foreign nationals—but some Americans do this as well.

And that's not good. But that's also not all cases of somebody holding somebody elses passport.

Which do you think more closely reflects the reality of the massage parlors in the Kraft case?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tom did ask a good question though, Loren. Why else would they hold the passports if not an attempt to control these women? Could be identity theft I guess. Could be other things. But trafficking sure does seem to top the list to me. As I said above, it isn't conclusive, but its pretty good evidence.

I do agree it's an attempt to control them. It's a useful tactic if they are illegals, it's nowhere near strong enough if they are truly trafficked. Hence I see that as more evidence they are simply here illegally.

Smuggling human beings is a primary characteristic of trafficking.

No. Lack of consent is the primary characteristic of trafficking.

Add in confiscation of passports, which as you admit is an effort to control (and I will add, an extremely effective tool to control)

In a country like the US it doesn't stop someone from going to the police. If she's really being forced into prostitution, go to the cops! On the other hand, if the smugglers want her to work for them, not for someone else it makes a lot of sense.

And it really is trafficking. Especially when you consider that they are moved from site to site at the employer's/owner's will and to hide the nature of the business model and also to control the 'employees'/slaves. Because, really that's what you are talking about: persons with so little control over their work or life conditions, places of work/domicile, ability to move, coupled with extremely poor compensation and high rates of 'rent' and 'transportation' and so on and what you really have are slaves that you can throw a few bucks at once in a while and you can make disappear whenever you want by moving them to a different location--or by killing them. Simply moving them often enough that they aren't able to develop a special relationship with clients is probably enough, though.

What you aren't showing is that the conditions are worse than where they came from.

Trafficking happens with Americans, too. Usually very young girls who are runaways. I suspect also young boys but I have read much less about that. Girls are often first befriended, then perhaps seduced, offered protection, and if they 'act up,' the threats begin. Against them, sometimes against family back home. They have little access to money, little freedom of movement. Little control over any aspect of their lives. They are moved from place to place: trafficked.

Agreed--runways being forced into prostitution is a real issue and one I think prostitution licenses would help with.

 

[Toni]

Smuggling human beings is a primary characteristic of trafficking.

No. Lack of consent is the primary characteristic of trafficking.

Add in confiscation of passports, which as you admit is an effort to control (and I will add, an extremely effective tool to control)

In a country like the US it doesn't stop someone from going to the police. If she's really being forced into prostitution, go to the cops! On the other hand, if the smugglers want her to work for them, not for someone else it makes a lot of sense.

Wait: I'm told over and over and over that presumably American prostitutes cannot report crimes against them such as rape and assault and robbery but you are trying to tell me that it is zero problem for a non-English proficient prostitute who is working in the US and who does not have access to her own passport, cannot dictate her own working conditions, cannot leave the premises without an escort and who is moved from place to place without being consulted is simply free to get up and go down to the nearest precinct and report that she's a victim of trafficking/being held as a sex slave?

And it really is trafficking. Especially when you consider that they are moved from site to site at the employer's/owner's will and to hide the nature of the business model and also to control the 'employees'/slaves. Because, really that's what you are talking about: persons with so little control over their work or life conditions, places of work/domicile, ability to move, coupled with extremely poor compensation and high rates of 'rent' and 'transportation' and so on and what you really have are slaves that you can throw a few bucks at once in a while and you can make disappear whenever you want by moving them to a different location--or by killing them. Simply moving them often enough that they aren't able to develop a special relationship with clients is probably enough, though.

What you aren't showing is that the conditions are worse than where they came from.

That's not necessary. It doesn't matter if their life is as bad or worse in their home country. What matters is how they are being treated on US soil.

Trafficking happens with Americans, too. Usually very young girls who are runaways. I suspect also young boys but I have read much less about that. Girls are often first befriended, then perhaps seduced, offered protection, and if they 'act up,' the threats begin. Against them, sometimes against family back home. They have little access to money, little freedom of movement. Little control over any aspect of their lives. They are moved from place to place: trafficked.

Agreed--runways being forced into prostitution is a real issue and one I think prostitution licenses would help with.

How?

I would really like to be convinced of that. But from what I have read and heard and seen, legal prostitution does not lessen the demand for illegal prostitution. And illegal prostitution is rife with unwilling runaways or adults who entered the profession when they were forced into the life as under age runaways and no longer see other options for themselves.

 

[RavenSky]

Keeping passports would keep them from going elsewhere, it wouldn't keep them from going to the police.

It would be a clear sign of criminal activity too. One would have to wonder why they would take a passport from someone. If not to entrap them, then why? It may not be conclusive, but it is a pretty clear sign of being trafficked against their will.

If they were truly trafficked against their will they would go to the police, the passport wouldn't matter. Thus they must consider the mistreatment they get in the brothel superior to going home--illegals, not trafficked.

Sure

Hey boss slaver! You took my passport and your are prostituting me out against my will, so I need the day off to pop down to the local police station and file a criminal complaint against you. OkeeDokee?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If they were truly trafficked against their will they would go to the police, the passport wouldn't matter. Thus they must consider the mistreatment they get in the brothel superior to going home--illegals, not trafficked.

Sure

Hey boss slaver! You took my passport and your are prostituting me out against my will, so I need the day off to pop down to the local police station and file a criminal complaint against you. OkeeDokee?

Umm ... excuse me? That’s Mister Boss Slaver. You’re not in a first name basis with him.