"Victims of Complacency": Trafficking and Abuse of Migrant Workers on U.S. Military Bases
(Originally posted on )
Ramesh, a college graduate from India, borrowed $5,000 from a loan shark to pay a recruiting agent for the opportunity to work in Kuwait as a storekeeper at a wage of $800/month. His aims were simple: to provide a better life for himself and his family. Instead, Ramesh was trafficked to a U.S. military base in Iraq where he was compelled to work as a janitor for $150/month. This paltry sum meant that Ramesh was unable to meet his loan repayments. In a cruel attempt to intimidate him into making his payments, the loan shark sexually assaulted Ramesh’s sister and seized the family home.
This story, recounted in the just-released, joint ACLU-Yale Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic report, “Victims of Complacency”, is but one example of the price that many migrant workers have paid and continue to pay for the opportunity to work on U.S. military bases and other U.S.-run facilities around the world.
These migrant workers, often referred to as “third-country nationals,” or “TCNs,” have become an indispensable part of the daily lives of our troops in the wars and their aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Ramesh, TCNs come mainly from developing countries such as India, the Philippines, Nepal and Uganda, and are contracted to perform low-paid but essential services as cooks, janitors, cleaners and mechanics on U.S. military bases worldwide. In 2011, there were TCNs contracted to work in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. And while the U.S. military has largely been replaced by the State Department in Iraq, , many of whom are TCNs, remain in the country to provide services to the U.S. embassy.
“Victims of Complacency,” together with hundreds of pages of documents obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, details the trafficking, forced labor and other abuses that thousands of TCNs have suffered since 2003. The report also provides a concrete set of detailed recommendations to Congress that are aimed at preventing future abuses.
As the report documents, the trafficking and abuse of TCNs in Iraq and Afghanistan is facilitated by the U.S. government contacting and sub-contracting process. The U.S. government, often through the Department of Defense or State, will award prime contractors, U.S.-based corporations such as Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), logistics contracts to service the U.S. military on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These government contractors in turn subcontract to other contractors, most of them located in the Gulf States or the Middle East, that then contract with local recruiting agencies in the workers’ countries of origin. Workers like Ramesh, enticed by promises of high paying jobs in the Middle East, take out loans from local loan sharks to pay recruiting agency fees for the promise of high-paying jobs overseas. Some workers get lucky; their recruiting agencies don’t charge them a fee and are honest about the location and pay of their work. However, many workers are not so fortunate. Like Ramesh they end up paying exorbitant recruitment fees to secure jobs that pay much less than advertised and that are located in different countries than indicated on their contracts (Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates), or sometimes . Often, these jobs come with unsafe and living and working conditions. Fearful of losing their jobs and defaulting on their loans, which often mean the loss of their livelihoods back home, these workers continue with their contracts in spite of these conditions. Contractors, who are often aware of the precarious financial situation of many TCNs, take advantage of and will threaten the workers with termination if they make complaints about their poor working conditions and pay.
“Victims of Complacency” also highlights how the government contracting process opens the door to corruption and waste of U.S. tax-payer’s dollars by U.S. military contractors. For example, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting noted in its that contractors bill for TCNs at an average rate of $67,600 to perform food services and other menial tasks. Yet, TCN salaries often range between $150-$500 a month, or $1800-$6000 per year. Since TCNs are often charged for their recruitment and transportation into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unclear what causes such a large discrepancy between contractor billings and TCN salaries.
Despite and reports on TCN and abuse and contractor malfeasance, in the past ten years a military contractor has been by the government. Nor is there evidence that military contracts are ever terminated due to contractor trafficking violations. However, as the ACLU-Yale report notes, the United States government can address future trafficking, abuse, and corruption in government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan by taking small, but important steps to improve the oversight of the contracting process and more effectively enforce existing laws and policies, including U.S. anti-trafficking laws. “Victims of Complacency” makes a number of concrete recommendations on how greater oversight may be introduced and how U.S. laws may be employed to counter trafficking and abuse of TCNs in the future.
The U.S. government has repeatedly and forcefully stressed its zero-tolerance policy on trafficking; criminal prosecutions and administrative penalties for non-compliant companies should be at the forefront of its enforcement strategy against U.S. contractors that violate U.S. anti-trafficking laws.
As some companies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, the adoption of stricter hiring and employment standards, aimed at preventing trafficking and abuse of TCNs, are not a pipe dream. “Victims of Complacency” highlights that FSI Worldwide, a British contractor, has hired workers from Nepal, India, and Kenya for positions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the UAE. FSI “transfer[s] the cost of recruitment from the TCN to the contracting company, eliminat[es] recruiting agents and us[es] only trusted senior personnel to conduct recruitment, and ask[s] recruits to sign non-payment declarations and to report any attempts by staff to extort money.”
TCNs migrate to find work, to provide for their families, and to save for a better life. The responsibility lies with the U.S. government to ensure that these workers—who provide valuable services to our troops and embassies—are not trafficked, forced into indentured servitude, or otherwise exploited on the taxpayer’s dime in violation of U.S. and international law.
Learn more about human trafficking: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.