nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Guardian: Human traffickers are entrepreneurs, and "everyone wins"

[Deleted User]

The booming business for smuggling people to the US: 'Everyone wins'

I thought this was quite a remarkable article, considering what Europe thinks of the smugglers bringing people in from North Africa, you know those ones who let ships sink with dozens or hundreds dying.

It even seems to be somewhat self-aware, based on the last paragraph:

There are even cheaper packages, “but those are where you’re more likely to get robbed by organised crime, kidnapped, raped, or killed for your organs”. He shrugged, and ran his hand through his hair. “We don’t recommend those routes, but we give people their options.”

Is this where we're at now? "Entrepreneurs" sometimes raping and stealing organs, but "everyone wins"?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sbsquarepants

Everybody wins....apart from the poor fúckers who drown!

But the truth is the people who pay for the service and take the risk reckon it's worth doing. Very much a lesser of 2 evils, but lesser is the important part.

It's not like Virgin are going to start laying on free jumbos to transport these people. Eu governments (and populace) are quite happy to just leave you in whatever hell hole you're trying to escape, so what are your options?

Stay put or take a chance with a trafficker?

If I was in a situation like that, I'd be grateful for the existence of traffickers - I'd just hope I got one of the more decent ones.

kneemos

Everyone Wins is a quote from the article not agreement by the paper for people smuggling.

GLaDOS

Seems like it's taking a swipe at Trump for incentivizing it, rather that praising trafficking itself.

As noted by Kneemos, "Everybody wins" is the opinion of the smuggler, not The Guardian.

[Deleted User]

I know it's the opinion of the trafficker. But it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire article that the author approves of all of this.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's the opinion of the trafficker. But it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire article that the author approves of all of this.

The author is a freelance journalist.

Sonics2k

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's the opinion of the trafficker. But it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire article that the author approves of all of this.

I really don't know where you're getting that from.

Reading the article, what I see is a load of quotes from the smugglers, the people who pay, prices and so on.

Also, holy crap those prices are insane.

[Deleted User]

Pherekydes wrote: »

The author is a freelance journalist.

I am aware of that also. Just don't see why an article calling human traffickers entrepreneurs and generally being positive should be so high on the Guardian's international page under "Spotlight".

Looking at the US version, it isn't there, nor in the UK's. It's like it's a mistake that it got higher on the page that the Opinion section.

https://www.theguardian.com/international

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's the opinion of the trafficker. But it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire article that the author approves of all of this.

I disagree. It appears very even-keeled to me, it's not making any moral declarations either way. It's merely explaining the factors behind smuggling and including quotations from a smuggler.

Tbh, you're the one who's tried to put a slant on it by mentioning "human trafficking". Trafficking is smuggling people into another country for the purposes of holding them against their will and forcing them to work in exploitative circumstances. That is, slavery.

The guy interviewed in the article deals with illegal migration and document fraud. Which is a different thing to trafficking. Though I'd be surprised if he refuses money from a 3rd party to smuggle people across the border, who then end up trapped and forced to work. Which makes him complicit at a minimum.

But that's not mentioned in the article, so at best you could say that the article doesn't really discuss trafficking at all.

The use of "entrepreneurs" could be seen as being sympathetic. But you also have to remember that these people aren't breaking any laws in the jurisdiction where they're based. Which in theory makes them legitimate businesspeople.

[Deleted User]

Fair enough. Just thought it was a bit mad considering the last paragraph.

Harry Palmr

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's the opinion of the trafficker. But it's pretty clear from the tone of the entire article that the author approves of all of this.

:rolleyes: What a dope you are. It's a straightforward examination of the immigrant industry which simply outlines how the smugglers operate within the shifting dynamic of the USA immigration policy and practices.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough. Just thought it was a bit mad considering the last paragraph.

Sure;

There are even cheaper packages, “but those are where you’re more likely to get robbed by organised crime, kidnapped, raped, or killed for your organs”. He shrugged, and ran his hand through his hair. “We don’t recommend those routes, but we give people their options.”

But the same is true for a package holiday to South Africa. I'm sure Trailfinders don't do budget packages like this, but you wouldn't have much trouble finding an agent in South Africa who will put you at risk in exchange for some cash.

recedite

GLaDOS wrote: »

Seems like it's taking a swipe at Trump for incentivizing it, rather that praising trafficking itself.

Which itself is bizarrre, because the newspaper claims that by trying to stop it he is encouraging it. Flawed logic.

Also "climate change" gets thrown in - the bean harvest is apparently affected. More nonsense.

If they can afford to pay $8K -$11K for one of these packages, then they can afford to eat at a medium priced restaurant in Guatemala.

Gimme A Pound

Harry Palmr wrote: »

:rolleyes: What a dope you are.

There wasn't really cause to get personal now was there?

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

Which itself is bizarrre, because the newspaper claims that by trying to stop it he is encouraging it. Flawed logic.

Well, if Trump closes the border completely the only way people will get across it is via people traffickers.

recedite

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, if Trump closes the border completely the only way people will get across it is via people traffickers.

He hasn't closed it, he is closing down the illegal routes by increasing patrols and beefing up sections of the wall.
Even if he did close the official crossings, it still does not follow that unofficial crossings are made easier.

Dyr

It's the Guardian, you can almost taste the White Guilt when it opens in your browser

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

But the same is true for a package holiday to South Africa. I'm sure Trailfinders don't do budget packages like this, but you wouldn't have much trouble finding an agent in South Africa who will put you at risk in exchange for some cash.

I'd imagine that refugees aren't splurging on the more expensive option. Most would be at the hands of the cheaper ones she mentioned at the end of the article.

Her other articles don't seem to address this issue. So to me, it's a bit too positive for what the situation actually is.