Travel Agency: A Critique of Anti-Trafficking Campaigns

Nandita Sharma

Such a framing of the problem leaves many crucial questions unasked, questions such as: What are the conditions from which migrants are moving? How are most people   

What are the factors that expose undocumented migrants to heightened vulnerability within nationalized labour markets? How are the (im)migration regimes of national states implicated in this?

I will try to show that far from helping migrants, especially women and children who are the main focus of many anti-trafficking efforts, anti-trafficking and/or anti-smuggling campaigns exacerbate the conditions that cause harm to migrants. They do so because one of the key underlying motives of these campaigns is to restrict the mobility of migrants, particularly undocumented movements of people.

Indeed, deeply embedded within the anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling discourse and practice are anti-immi-grant sentiments expressed best in the idea that migrants are almost (if not) always better off at "home." This is evident in both official and feminist definitions of trafficking. Since feminist organizations are at the forefront world-wide in initiating and sustaining public campaigns against trafficking it is important to examine their assumptions.

The most widely used definition of trafficking within such campaigns was jointly arrived at in 1999 by the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), the Foundation Against Trafficking in Women, and the International Human Rights Law Group (IHRLG) based in the U.S.

First, it makes the fact of migration the overriding concern and problem. Exploitation "away from home" is con-ceptualized as a separate problem from exploitative and/or untenable economic relations "at home." This structures knowledge of "home" in particular ways. Exploitation comes to be identified with people’s movements abroad and loses its moorings from the organization and expansion of capitalist social relationships wherein people’s labour is alienated. In the process "home" is left naturalized and therefore depoliticized as a site where harm is also done to persons. As a result, the fact that capital is accrued and accumulated through employers’ appropriation of a portion of workers’ labour power is concealed. Moreover, the fact that people often move because they have been dislocated from their homes is left unaddressed by the romanticization of being "at home."

The problematization of the migration of undocumented people also fails to address why certain people’s mobilities are celebrated (those of tourists, intellectuals and members of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for example) while those of Others is seen as detrimental. Secondly, this influential definition of what constitutes trafficking fails to account for the reality of the current worldwide crisis of displacement, the proliferation of ever-increasing restrictive immigration policies that prevent the majority of migrants from ever realizing full status in the countries and labour markets they migrate to, and the intensified expansion of global capitalist markets over the last quarter-century.

To address these important issues, I argue that we need to jettison the anti-trafficking and the anti-smuggling discourse and the national and international governmental practices that such discourses organize. Anti-trafficking campaigns need to be replaced with a political practice that actually listens to and privileges the standpoint of undocumented migrants. Undocumented migrants the world over have some fairly uniform and well-articulated demands: an end to practices of displacement, the opening of national border regimes and the labour markets organized through them, and an end to discrimination based on one’s nationality.

These are precisely the politics that have been taken up by the growing group of No Borders activists in the Global North and South.

An approach that is grounded in the material lived realities of migrants makes for a far more transformative practice, I believe, than an emphasis on the abusive practices within criminalized networks of smuggling in persons.

Rather than calling for an end to trafficking or smuggling, taking the standpoint of migrants compels us to deal with the reality that such illicit movements are the only ones available to the majority of the world’s displaced people.

As a preliminary attempt to begin our discussion of clandestine movements of people from the standpoint of migrants rendered "illegal," this paper is grounded in the accounts of women who arrived on four separate boats from China and landed on the west coast of Canada in the summer of 1999. All 599 migrants on these boats arrived without legal documentation and with the assistance of

By looking at issues of power between advocates and migrants within feminist discourses of trafficking, my analysis examines some of the often-overlooked aspects of the question of trafficking in women. In particular, I critically examine both the official and feminist representations of "trafficked" "victims" and how anti-trafficking campaigns collude with national state as well as international political agendas that frame trafficking solely in terms of illegal migration. I further examine how the representation of undocumented women migrants solely as victims helps to legitimate the criminalization of their (and others’) migrations.

By discussing the ways in which migrant women’s narratives challenge accepted notions of victimhood, I hope to bring to the fore the ways in which the international regime of nationalized borders creates the conditions for the proliferation of dangerous migrations.

My findings will suggest that when moral panics of illegal migration, border control, and heightened criminality of migrants are deconstructed, a serious disjuncture emerges between women’s accounts of migration and the dominant rhetoric of trafficking. Indeed, by critically evaluating the fissure between certain anti-trafficking campaigns and the experiences of undocumented women we find that women within the two groups are often not fighting for the same thing. This paper, therefore, asks whether it is possible that the actual intended utility of anti-trafficking campaigns is not to serve the interests of migrants but to function as an arm of border control? If so, the issue is really how it has chosen to represent its objectives as humanitarian, thereby sustaining support for an inherently oppressive project from many progressive people.

The displacement of people is organized through the co-ordinated interplay of actions taken by capitalist investors, national state leaders, and members of international bodies. Investors continuously "prowl the globe," to use

relations.

International bodies, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), not only fund these mega-development projects but with other bodies, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), enforce the spread of capitalist social relations, require austerity programs (often to be implemented by all-too-willing national governments), and impose trade sanctions. Together, capital investors, national states, and international governing regimes bring to life Margaret Thatcher’s old campaign slogan that "there is no alternative" to capitalist market development.

Within China alone, those displaced by the Three Gorges Dam are joined by an estimated 200 to 300 million people migrating within the country in the search for new livelihoods because of the turn towards the capitalist market-place in both the countryside and the city. The dual process of proletarianization and urbanization is taking place throughout Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and South and Central America.

The response to such spatial disparities by national states within the Global North (where 70 per cent of all trans-national corporate headquarters and the United Nations (UN), the IMF, WB, and WTO are headquartered) has been the imposition of draconian immigration restrictions. A plethora of these have been put into place. The Schengen Treaty, signed by European Union (EU) members in 1985, neutralized internal borders between member states, thereby enabling the free circulation of goods, capital, services, and people classified as citizens. Alongside these border liberalizations, attempts to reinforce the external borders of the EU have been made through greater policing and surveillance levels on the outer rim of the EU and through the harmonization of the migration policies of member states. By presenting the migration of non-EU citizens as a major "problem," the Schengen treaty has created a consciousness, if not actual practice, of a fortified Europe buttressing itself against its non-European Others.

Despite these changes, however, people keep coming.

National states in the Global North and international bodies, such as the EU or the UN, have discursively and legally associated trafficking with illegality and with organized crime. Borders have been presented as a site through which criminality is able to seep into the national state. In this respect, the implementation of border protection schemes has been endorsed as a pivotal measure to regain "control" over Our space. As the President of the EU stated recently, "[b]etter management of the Union’s external border con-

This is similar to the approach adopted by the UN. It its 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children and the 2000 Palermo Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants, the issues facing undocumented migrants have been situated not within the apparatus dealing with issues of human rights but within the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. This has led some to argue that the last concern of such measures is the migrant her/himself.

If certain migrants can be labeled as "trafficked," it seems, then specific policy measures to initiate deportation measures can be mobilized with little outcry from the general population and even some (im)migrant advocates. Such legitimation strategies are perhaps most evident in regard to women who are identified as "victims of trafficking."

The priority of establishing law and order at the border evident within national and international practices further exacerbates the conditions that cause harm to undocumented migrants. Making it increasingly costly for smugglers to move people, by militarizing and patrolling routes

By ignoring the reasons – and responsibility – for why people begin their clandestine journeys and by making the stopping of smuggling its top priority, the "get tough on traffickers and/or smugglers" approach further serves the ideological purpose of wholly eclipsing the fact that people’s displacement is caused by economic, political, or social forces controlled by the complex interactions of transactional corporations, national states, and international bod-ies. Moreover, the reality that, aside from profit-making smuggling rings, there is very little ability for people to migrate, is ignored.

As a result of the failure to address these systemic causes and effects, the actual lives of migrants are made unimportant. Indeed, it can be argued that anti-trafficking campaigns, by relying upon and further mobilizing nationalist ideas of "homelands," actually work to strengthen the state, strengthen nationalist ideas of entitlement for "citizens" and punishment for "non-citizens" and strengthen the profit-making capacities of capital investors. Through these efforts, legitimacy is gained for securing a growing group of people who through their classification as "illegals" can be exploited precisely because of their lack of nationality status. In this there is collusion between anti-trafficking NGOs who wish to define women migrants moving sans papiérs as "trafficked" and the state and regional and international bodies who also want to do so. Determining that a particular woman has been trafficked enables the state to deport the woman while appearing to be helping her. Of course it does not hurt the funding opportunities for the NGOs embarking on anti-trafficking campaigns either since continued funding often rests on producing a good record on how many women have been "rescued" by the group.

The discourse that associates trafficking with violence is perhaps key to its legitimacy as the dominant analytic frame for comprehending certain people’s migrations, especially those of women and children. As Rutvica Andrijasevic states,

It is important to stress that presenting one’s self as a victim is indispensable for a woman attempting to obtain the right to remain in the country. Many women’s stories of ill-treatment at the hands of traffickers need to be under-stood within the context of the state having criminalized the very activities that both she and the smugglers are engaged in together. For example, given that prostitution is either illegal or not fully decriminalized, a woman can not say that she knew full well that she was coming to the U.S. or Canada to work as a sex worker without admitting her guilt at committing a criminal offense. Only by claiming to have been kidnapped, lured, or misled into working as a sex worker can she expect any help from most women’s organizations or the state. Now, no doubt, certain movements of people, particularly undocumented movements, are inculcated with violence.

Yet, instead of acting on how the clandestine movement of people has its roots in the global capitalist system with its nationalized border control regimes, anti-trafficking campaigns actively look to state authorities to combat and sup-press trafficking. The assumption of the illegal and criminal nature of trafficking or smuggling enables anti-trafficking campaigns to put forward an agenda calling for measures to combat it through heightened border patrols or more punitive measures for traffickers and/or smugglers. Thus, tighter control over the borders, stricter immigration laws, and more punitive criminal laws are called upon as indispensable measures to rescue migrants.

Instead, without exception, the ability to stay in Canada (or the U.S.) legally, to work, make and save wages paid in Canadian (or U.S.) dollars and to be reunited with their family members, either in China or in North America, were the most consistent demands they expressed. Yet, many (but not all) migrants’ rights activists or feminists active as their closest advocates were unable to fully understand this and incorporate this into their practice.

Calls for punitive measures to further criminalize the smugglers who helped these women realize their survival strategy were often articulated. Any serious questioning of an (im)migration regime that created the conditions for their unsafe journey or their vulnerability once inside Canada was rarely articulated (and when done so, was usually articulated by those critical of the "anti-trafficking" frame-work). Such responses by activists allows us to see just how anti-trafficking campaigns offer support for more restrictive immigration policies in the name of exposing the criminal "trafficker" and/or "smuggler."

Significantly, once the women interviewed had been captured by the Canadian state, it was imperative for them to claim refugee status rather than claim to know that they were coming to Canada to work as undocumented workers, especially if they came to work within the sex industry. Once in jail, revealing the reasons for embarking on these journeys to state officials (and by extension to those feminists who could see the sex industry only as a place of violence) would only serve to jeopardize their claim. After all, having a so-called ‘bona fide’ refugee claim requires that the applicant prove that she has been politically persecuted. Of course, this is more of an indictment of the refugee determination system than of the women forced to fit themselves into its narrow confines. After all, proving that one is impoverished and in desperate need of a new livelihood does not get a person refugee status in Canada. The majority of the women whom I interviewed were well aware of the severe limitations of the current refugee determination system.

In the end, all of the twenty-four women I had an opportunity to interview were deported from Canada. Because of the highly criminalized character of any subsequent journeys they may embark on, I have not been able to maintain contact with them. Suffice it to say that none of them was happy to be "reintegrated back into their home society" as one would expect of "trafficked" women who had "…by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation" as the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children would lead us to expect.

I have shown how, fundamentally, anti-trafficking campaigns serve to enforce nationalized border-regimes and tighten immigration regulations by legitimating the interception and deportation of undocumented migrants. Yet, it is also important to recognize how the "help trafficked victims" approach intersects with the state project of "getting tough on migrants" to shore up the legitimacy of the national state as it continues to aid the operation of global capitalism.

It is, in part, through state categories of illegality that the both the social and legal meaning of "foreigner" is materiaized within Canada. People named as "illegals" become the very embodiment of the foreigner in that the state is seen to be legitimate in denying them all the protections and entitlements (labour market and so on) supposedly offered to the citizenry. The deep lack of solidarity across and through national borders manifests itself in such actions, since the state is able to garner great legitimacy in cracking down on "illegal" migrants.

Thus, not only do illegalized workers reap greater profits for employers, they also enable the national state to perform its role as the protector of the citizenry. I argue that these are not contradictory phenomena but how the global sys-tem of capitalism has been reproduced through the equally global system of national states. Indeed, constructing mi-grants as "illegal" in the Canadian labour market is part of the rationality of ruling during this period of globalization.

Categories of legal and illegal workers reproduce the rationality of nationalizing labour markets. It helps to make common sense of the notion that the labour market in Canada belongs to Canadians alone. The notion that We ought to have more benefits than Others do is therefore presented as positive, even progressive, and most certainly natural. I argue that this is one of the underlying, yet always implicit, principles of anti-trafficking campaigns and their deep concern that people stay at "home." Yet, at the same time, anti-trafficking campaigns ostensibly aim to prevent undocumented migrations or "reintegrate" undocumented migrants to their "home" countries.

This is not a contradictory phenomenon, however. Instead, the establishment of anti-trafficking campaigns amidst the largest crisis of displacement in documented human history enables the national state to secure a highly vulnerable workforce of "illegals" for employers while allowing the state to present itself as acting for the citizenry. In the process, the state is re-invented as the natural, even demo-

Categories of legality and illegality are, therefore, deeply ideological. They help to conceal the fact that both those represented as foreigners and those seen as Canadian work within the same labour market and live within the same society. Ironically, then, the rendering of certain people as illegalized Others within Canada creates the "cheap" labour force that government and state officials argue they are protecting Us from.

The policy arena of immigration, then, is one of the key avenues for "nation"-building and state formation. Organizing differences between groups of people within the nation- state is a cornerstone of the ongoing importance of state power. In this regard, I argue that growing international movements of capital and people do not create the conditions for the erosion of the state but for its persistence.

The recognized right for national states to enforce universally established mechanisms to regulate people’s mobility across nationalized borders helps to legitimize state power used against those rendered as Other within the confines of nation-states and weaken those with inferior membership status.

Concepts of citizenship, then, rather than working to progressively expand the rights and entitlements of people living in nationalized spaces, are the ideological cement that holds the repressive power of state practices in place. In regard to the construction of "trafficked victims," citizen-ship "quietly borrows" from the fictive community of the nation in order to restructure the labour market in Canada.

It is therefore a matter of utmost urgency that we jettison the use of anti-trafficking discourses and reject the practices that such discourses promote. Instead of calling for greater state intervention in regard to undocumented movements of people embarking on journeys of survival, it is crucial that we see how anti-trafficking measures not only contribute to the criminalization of undocumented migrants but that they also provide a much-needed rationale for "getting tough on illegal migrants."

As it stands, illegalized migrants already constitute some of the most vulnerable and exploited people within nationalized labour markets. This reality will not change by assuming that criminalizing migration is tantamount to ending practices of displacement or ensuring safer routes of migration. If we truly wish to end practices of dislocation, make migration safer and end the conditions that make migrants vulnerable in all areas of their lives, we need to shift the focus back to the everyday lived realities of the migrants, especially women and children, that are purportedly being helped by them.

It is precisely by looking at the choices that are taken away and those that are left to undocumented migrants that we can understand the systems of ruling that organize their everyday lived reality. Thus, we need to challenge not only smugglers who move people for personal profits but also capitalist social relations that displace people and render them vulnerable within nationalized spaces.

Moreover, we need to critically examine state practices that are able to legally, and with great legitimacy amongst the citizenry, discriminate against people on the basis of nationality. A nationalist consciousness of "home" is the ideological foundation for organizing contemporary forms of Global Apartheid. Thus, we need to challenge the assumption that "home" is profoundly linked to nationalized territories; that "society" is coterminous with national states. It is the nationalizing of "home" and "belonging" that leads to the acceptance of differential rights and entitlements for people on the basis of whether they are categorized as members or non-members.

As an alternative to anti-trafficking campaigns and as a profound challenge to various apartheids, it is crucial we recognize that borders have never worked to contain capital, only people. For example, countries, like Canada, that believed, at least rhetorically, in national control over capital investments within its confines, also supported capitalists engaged in imperialist practices outside of its borders. We thus need to reject the notion that border control practices are necessary for the protection of the "nation." Instead, it is necessary that we recognize that they are necessary for the protection and profitability of capital. The (im)migration regimes of national states are one of the key vehicles through which such competition is organized.

Thus, one very concrete way to strengthen the position of migrants is to reject the power of the state to differentiate amongst "citizens" and "foreigners" and to determine who can move with rights and who cannot. In other words, we need to extend the field in which we fight for social justice beyond the boundaries of the "nation" and the territorial state. We need to ensure that all persons in the world are equally entitled to the benefits currently enjoyed by an (ever-shrinking) few.

Such demands are the cornerstone of the growing movements of No Borders activists and their networks located throughout and across the Global South and North. In general, such movements have developed an integrated

Our hope in achieving these goals lies in the power of our imaginations. After all, the most dangerous kind of colonialism is one that colonizes minds as well as bodies. Therefore, the strongest, most effective movements against colonialisms are those that are able to clearly imagine a world without the structures, institutions, and consciousness imposed through such practices.

An important example of how a decolonized imagination is mobilized is that of Harriet Tubman, "conductor" of the Underground Railway. This network of smugglers helped thousands of Black slaves move away from slave-holding regions in the U.S. to the northern U.S. or into Canada. Such a movement of people foregrounded the lived realities and demands of enslaved Blacks and rejected both the laws that enslaved them and that restricted others’ ability to act in meaningful solidarity with them. Today, Tubman would be classified as a smuggler and, if success-fully prosecuted under the 2002 Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be imprisoned for life.

1. I use "scare quotes" around the terms "trafficking" and "smuggling" to signify that I wish to reader to interrogate, rather than accept, their taken-for-granted character. For the remainder of the paper, however, I will forgo this practice but wish to continue to alert the reader about the problematic assumptions embedded within these terms.

2. "Human Rights Standards for the Treatment of Trafficked Persons," online: International Human Rights Law Group (IHRLG) <http://www.hrlawgroup.org/resources/content/IHRLGTraffickin_tsStandards.pdf> (date accessed: 13 Feb-ruary 2003).

3. Bob Sutcliffe, "Migration and Citizenship: Why Can Birds, Whales, Butterflies and Ants Cross International Frontiers More Easily than Cows, Dogs and Human Beings?" in Migration and Mobility: The European Context, ed. S. Ghatak and A. Showstack Sassoon (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 67.

4. As I am more interested in discussing how some of the practices of this group were organized through the discourse of "anti-trafficking," the focus of my paper is on this discourse and practice rather than on the specific actions of this one group. I leave this group unnamed because I do not see it as exceptional but rather as typical of those feminist groups that unproblematically accept the ideological frame of trafficking.

5. International Labour Office (ILO), "Getting at the Roots: Stopping Exploitation of Migrant Workers by Organized Crime" (International Symposium, The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime: Requirements for Effective Implementation, Turin, Italy 22–23 February 2002), 3.

6. Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Bases and Beaches: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (London: Pandora, 1990).

7. In just one example since 1994, the Canadian government’s Export Development Corporation has lent the Chinese government approximately $200 million to build the Three Gorges Dam. "Who’s Behind China’s Three Gorges Dam," online: Probe International Homepage <http://www.nextcity/com/probeinternational’ThreeGorges/who .html > (date ac-cessed: 19 April 2001).

8. Rod Mickleburgh, "China Diverts Mighty Yangtze to Cheers," The Globe and Mail, 10 November 1997; "Who’s Behind China’s Three Gorges Dam," online: Probe International Homepage <http://www.nextcity/com/probeinternational’ ThreeGorges/who .html > (date accessed: 19 April 2001).

9. "Major Problems Found in Three Gorges Dam Resettlement Program," online: International Rivers Network <http://www.igc.apc.org/hric/reports/3gorges.html> (date accessed: April 12, 2001).

10. "Urban Population Continues to Grow," online: College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (EMS), Pennsylvania State Uni-versity. <http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/Urban-Pop.html> (date accessed: 15 February 2003).

11. International Labour Office, "Global Employment Trends," Geneva, 2003, ISBN 92-2-113360-5. 2003.

12. United Nations Population Fund, The State of World Population (New York: UN Population Fund, 2001).

13. Saskia Sassen, The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labor Flow (New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 1988), 15.

14. T. Hatton and Jeffrey G. Williamson, The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).

15. Bob Sutcliffe, "Migration and Citizenship." To put this into broader historical perspective, it needs to be noted that self-directed emigration from European colonies was banned by colonial powers throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries. Of course European colonial powers forcibly moved people from Africa as slaves prior to this period and facilitated the movement of people as "coolie" or indentured labourers from Asia (mostly China and India) through-out the nineteenth century to colonies controlled mostly by the British. A Critique of Anti-Trafficking Campaigns

17. International Labour Office (ILO), "Getting at the Roots: Stopping Exploitation of Migrant Workers by Organized Crime" (International Symposium, The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime: Requirements for Effective Implementation, Turin, Italy 22–23 February 2002).

18. Ibid.

19. Nandita Sharma, "’Race’, Class and Gender and the Making of ‘Difference’: The Social Organization of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada," Atlantis: A Women’s Studies Journal (Special Issue: "Whose Canada Is It? Immigrant Women, Women of Colour, Citizenship and Multiculturalism") 24:2 (Winter 2000b): 5–15.

20. Ibid.

21. Stuart Hall defines a "moral panic" as existing: [w]hen the official reaction to a person, groups of persons or series of events is out of all proportion to the actual threat offered; when "experts," in the form of police chiefs, the judiciary, politicians, and editors, perceive the threat in all but identical terms, and appear to talk "with one voice" of rates, diagnoses, prognoses, and solution; when the media representations universally stress "sudden and dramatic" increases (in numbers involved or events) and "novelty" above and beyond that which a sober, realistic appraisal could sustain; then we believe it is appropriate to speak of the beginnings of a moral panic. See Paul Gilroy, "There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack": The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

22. Nandita Sharma, "Is Citizenship a Useful Concept in Social Policy Work? Non-Citizens: The Case of Migrant Workers in Canada," Studies in Political Economy 69 (Autumn 2002).

23. Yasmeen Abu-Laban, "Keeping ‘em Out: Gender, Race, and Class Biases in Canadian Immigration Policy," in Painting the Maple: Essays on Race, Gender, and the Construction of Canada, ed. V. Strong-Boag, S. Grace, A. Eisenberg, and J. Anderson (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1998).

24. Nandita Sharma, "’Race’, Class and Gender and the Making of ‘Difference’: The Social Organization of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada."

25. Saskia Sassen, The Mobility of Labor and Capital.

26. Nandita Sharma, "’Race’, Class and Gender and the Making of ‘Difference’."

27. Nandita Sharma, "The Making of Citizen Self and Non-Citizen Other: Canada’s Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Programme," in Globalization and Its Discontents, ed. S. McBride and J. Wiseman (London: Macmillan, 2000a), 129–42.

28. Anthony Richmond, Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism, and the New World Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

29. Nandita Sharma, "On Being Not Canadian: The Social Organization of ‘Migrant Workers’ in Canada," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 38:4 (November 2001): 415–39.

30. Nandita Sharma, "Is Citizenship a Useful Concept in Social Policy Work?"

31. Bridget Anderson and Julia O’Connell Davidson, "Trafficking: A Demand-Led Problem?" 2003 Report published by Save the Children Sweden, Sida and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs Sweden, online: <www.rse/bookshop> (date accessed: January

15, 2003).

32. Nandita Sharma, "The Social Organization of ‘Difference’ and Capitalist Restructuring in Canada: The Making of ‘Migrant Workers’ through the 1973 Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP)," Ph.D. dissertation, On-tario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, 2000).

33. Nandita Sharma, "The Making of Citizen Self and Non-Citizen Other."

34. Bridget Anderson and Julia O’Connell Davidson, "Trafficking: A Demand-Led Problem?"

35. "Presidency Conclusions Leaken European Council," No. 42 as cited in Rutvica Andrijasevic, "The Difference Borders Make: (Il)legality, Migration and Trafficking in Italy among Eastern European Women in Prostitution" in Uprootings/ Regroundings: Questions of Home and Migration, ed. S. Ahmed, C. Castaneda, A. Fortier, and M. Sheller (forthcoming: Berg, 2003).

36. Francois Crépeau, "The Fight against Migrant Smuggling: Migration Containment over Refugee Protection," in The Refugee Convention at Fifty: A View from Forced Migration Studies, ed. J. van Selm et al. (Boston: Lexington Books, 2003).

37. Ibid. Also see International Labour Office, "Getting at the

Roots."

38. Cynthia Meillon, "References to Trafficking in the Beijing + 5 Document," in Holding on to the Promise: Women’s Human Rights and the Beijing + 5 Review. ed. C. Meillon (New Brunswick: Center for Women’s Global Leadership, 2001).

39. Bill C-11, Article 117:3; Crépeau, "The Fight against Migrant

Smuggling."

40. Ibid.

41. Deborah Brock, Kara Gillies, Chanelle Oliver, and Mook Sutdhibhasilp, " Migrant Sex Work: A Roundtable Analysis,"

Canadian Woman Studies 20:2 (2000), 87.

42. Ibid.

43. Andrijasevic, "The Difference Borders Make."

44. Scenes for instance where a person identified as previously "trafficked" is asked to relive her experiences, to denounce trafficking in order to convince audience members of the need to support a particular organization’s anti-trafficking (and usually anti-prostitution) campaign or even when she is not asked to speak to her experiences of being "trafficked" but to talk about how she became active in "anti-trafficking" measures.

45. Ibid.

46. As cited in Crépeau, "The Fight against Migrant Smuggling."

47. Ibid.

50. International Labour Office, "Getting at the Roots," 2.

51. This was also found by Ko-Lin Chin, Smuggled Chinese: Clan-destine Immigration to the United States (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999).

52. See Ibid. for a discussion on how many "returned trafficking victims" almost immediately renew their attempts to secure jobs in the Global North soon after being returned.

53. Andrijasevic, in "The Difference Borders Make," came to a similar conclusion in the context of sex workers migrating to certain European countries.

54. Tellingly, an "employment committee" established by some feminist advocates working with these women tried to place some of the women living outside of the prisons in jobs within the garment industry. One of the least paid occupations within Vancouver, this was seen by these advocates as a viable alter-native to the sex industry for these women migrants.

55. Brock et al, " Migrant Sex Work."

65