Give trafficking survivors protection, not another reason to hide

Trafficking victims should be able to ask for help without having to wager their freedom on the answer. An immigration system that invites people to report exploitation should give them a meaningful chance to seek protection before moving to detain or remove them.

Trafficking Watch supports more lenient immigration enforcement for victims of trafficking: time to obtain counsel, a fair assessment of coercion, and a strong presumption against detention or removal while a credible request for victim protection is being evaluated. Where existing authority is insufficient, Congress should provide it.

A change that took effect in Massachusetts on November 3 offers a useful starting point. The state has put a clock on responses to requests for the agency paperwork that can support certain victim-based immigration applications. State implementation overview

A deadline is a beginning

Under the revised Massachusetts law, agencies must respond to U- and T-visa certification requests within 45 days. Specified urgent cases receive a 14-business-day deadline, with a written explanation and projected response date when extraordinary circumstances outside the agency’s control prevent a timely response. An answer may be a signed certification or a reasoned denial with review instructions. Enacted law, Section 13

The law also requires published procedures, bars certification fees, and says agencies cannot require criminal charges or a conviction. Enacted law, Section 13

Those are meaningful procedural commitments. A person trying to build a life beyond exploitation deserves to know where to send a request, who will consider it, and when an answer is due. A responsive public agency should be an ordinary expectation, especially when the person asking has already been subjected to someone else’s control.

But an answer on paper is only one part of safety. We should judge this reform by whether people can actually use it, rather than treating its effective date as proof that the system now works.

Two routes to protection

U visas concern qualifying crime victims; T visas concern victims of severe forms of trafficking. Agency certification is required for a U-visa petition. For a T-visa application, a law-enforcement declaration is optional supporting evidence. USCIS decides eligibility and immigration status. Department of Labor explanation, questions 18–21

That distinction belongs in every public explanation of this reform. A trafficking survivor should not leave an awareness campaign believing that a missing police signature automatically closes the T-visa path.

A prompt certification response gets one part of the process moving. Survivors also need time to obtain advice, gather evidence and seek protection without being removed before their circumstances receive a fair hearing.

Leniency should be a policy, not a favor

A serious anti-trafficking policy should make room for the circumstances of the person being evaluated. It should distinguish exploitation from voluntary conduct, allow time for a person to explain what happened, and resist the temptation to treat an immigration violation as the whole story.

Trafficking Watch calls for four practical commitments.

Screen for exploitation before taking irreversible enforcement steps. Where credible indicators of trafficking emerge, officials should arrange a competent, trauma-informed assessment and a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel before removal. Officials should assess public-safety concerns individually and document the reasons for their decisions.

Favor safety in the community while protection is considered. Federal policy should strongly favor release and time to pursue available relief for identified trafficking victims. Authorities should use lawful discretion to avoid detention or removal that would defeat a fair evaluation, with narrow, documented exceptions for serious individualized risks. Congress should address gaps that administrative discretion cannot resolve.

Examine coercion before imposing punishment. When an alleged offense arose from trafficking, prosecutors should examine the connection rather than assuming that a criminal charge settles the person’s role. Policymakers should establish meaningful protection against punishment for acts a person was compelled to commit because of trafficking, alongside routes to review resulting records. The inquiry should focus on the evidence of coercion and its connection to the alleged offense.

Make access to help practical. Interpretation, confidential advice, safe communications, and clear referral procedures should accompany certification policies. An agency has not made a process accessible merely by posting a form online.

Protection is part of accountability

The principle of avoiding punishment for compelled conduct has an established place in international anti-trafficking policy. A 2023 United Nations Human Rights Council resolution urged states to protect trafficking victims from prosecution or punishment for acts they were compelled to commit as a direct consequence of trafficking. It also called for assistance based on victims’ needs rather than conditioned on cooperation with law enforcement. UN resolution, paragraphs 1(a) and 1(c)

We should embrace that direction because the purpose of an anti-trafficking response is to reduce exploitation and make recovery possible. A victim’s worth does not depend on whether their experience produces a successful prosecution. Basic safety should not be a prize reserved for the most useful witness.

Careful review should establish what happened, what control was exercised over the person, what protection is available and what would make recovery possible. Those questions should guide enforcement from the first encounter.

Massachusetts now has an implementation test. Agencies should be able to show that their procedures are available and that requests receive timely, explained responses. Public reporting should measure performance without exposing the people seeking help. The next test is whether those commitments produce timely decisions and usable routes to help.

Georgia and South Carolina should apply the same test to their own systems: can a trafficking victim find help, obtain a clear answer and pursue protection? Across the country, immigration enforcement should give survivors the time and space to rebuild their lives.

We should pursue the people who exploit others with determination. We should meet the people they exploited with a presumption of protection. A faster answer is a start. A real chance to live safely is the standard.

Support resources: Trafficking Watch help page.