It is not always what it seems, per former diplomat Prabhu Dayal.
Stereotypes about India, often promoted by Indian-Americans who have not lived in India in thirty years, do not help. The American "do-good" brigades participate in these scams and feel smugly virtuous about it.
The latest Indian diplomat caught in this trap is Devyani Khobragade. Since she is both a woman and a Dalit, (both of India's "oppressed" classes) the do-good brigade is at a bit of a loss about what rhetorical line to take.
Ms. Khobragade's case would likely not have made the news, but for the fact that the US Marshals strip-searched her. Per the US Marshal Service, this is routine procedure. (Per Indian law, this disrobement is punishable by three to seven years of imprisonment.). The 2010 USMS directives say that a strip search is legally allowed only if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying contraband or weapons, or is a security, escape or suicide risk. But in 2012, the US Supreme Court made strip searches without reasonable cause the law of the land.
As Ramana on BRF put it, the Supreme Court has made the Abu Ghraib practices routine in the US.
PS: for anyone in doubt about the heavyhandedness of New York law, see this. When the real culprit confessed, he was not arrested.
Stereotypes about India, often promoted by Indian-Americans who have not lived in India in thirty years, do not help. The American "do-good" brigades participate in these scams and feel smugly virtuous about it.
The latest Indian diplomat caught in this trap is Devyani Khobragade. Since she is both a woman and a Dalit, (both of India's "oppressed" classes) the do-good brigade is at a bit of a loss about what rhetorical line to take.
Ms. Khobragade's case would likely not have made the news, but for the fact that the US Marshals strip-searched her. Per the US Marshal Service, this is routine procedure. (Per Indian law, this disrobement is punishable by three to seven years of imprisonment.). The 2010 USMS directives say that a strip search is legally allowed only if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying contraband or weapons, or is a security, escape or suicide risk. But in 2012, the US Supreme Court made strip searches without reasonable cause the law of the land.
As Ramana on BRF put it, the Supreme Court has made the Abu Ghraib practices routine in the US.
PS: for anyone in doubt about the heavyhandedness of New York law, see this. When the real culprit confessed, he was not arrested.
Logging you in...
CIP · 588 weeks ago
The headline case involves charges of enslavement. We fought a big war over that and such charges are taken very seriously. I personally found Dayal's defense a bit unpersuasive. Even diplomats should have a basic notion of our laws. You can't keep somebody in involuntary servitude here without running into our laws. The fact that the woman left is pretty persuasive evidence that she considered her servitude involuntary. Once she left, she became an American problem. If she made false accusations, that is a crime - for our courts to decide. Ditto the question of whether we should deport her or not.
If India wants domestic help that won't run, maybe they should pay them better.
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
1 & 2: Prabhu Dayal's own case, and that of Neena Malhotra.
3: Devyani Khobragade's case
4: Krittika Biswas's case
1. In Prabhu Dayal's case, he was not even in technical violation of any US law. The rule that housing, food, travel, etc., cannot count as wages was made **after** his case.
2. Neena Malhotra seems the same as the Prabhu Dayal case, but still do not have enough information.
3. Devyani Khobragade was in technical violation of the law. I'm not saying that she should suffer consequences for it; but nonetheless, diplomatic niceties have to be observed.
"The woman left is persuasive evidence that she considered her servitude involuntary" --- what kind of addled reasoning is that? Here is the definition of involuntary servitude: ""The term 'involuntary servitude' includes a condition of servitude induced by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraints, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process."
The A-3 visa applicant is interviewed alone by a US consular officer, and so the maid did not enter into such a condition involuntarily. We have ample evidence that the maid was happy in her employment, was in regular touch with her family in India, etc., etc.
I suppose you are aware that the A-3 visa is a non-immigrant visa? i.e., if you sponsor a visa for somebody as domestic help, US law says you are responsible for making sure they do not immigrate to the US, i.e., they must return to their country? If they leave employment, US authorities must be informed? As in this case was done.
Further, the maid in the Khobragade case is not some random nobody. She is married to someone who worked at the US Embassy in New Delhi. As far as we can tell (admittedly speculation, but the facts fit) her husband is known to Uzra Zeya, an acting Assistant Secretary of State.
Well before charges were made against Khobragade, Khobragade accused her maid of blackmail in an Indian court. The dispute between Khobragade and her maid was under adjudication in India. It is certainly not diplomatic to upend a judicial process in a friendly country.
4. The fourth case is that of Krittika Biswas, daughter of an Indian diplomat. She was arrested from her 12th grade classroom and held for 28 hours after being accused of cyber-bullying by a teacher. This despite having an alibi, and diplomatic immunity. When the real culprit confessed, he was not arrested.
CIP · 588 weeks ago
If the woman made false claims against Dayal, he has a case.
Otherwise, it's not his problem. The US has (weak and poorly enforced) laws against illegal immigration. We have other laws against involuntary servitude. It's not the job of the US government to serve as jailors for A-3 Visa holders who would like to work or be somewhere else. Of course she, like the other 11 million undocumented immigrants runs a risk of deportation.
Threat of deportation is the threat that is used to hold thousands of domestic workers, foreign prostitutes, and others in bondage. It's a crime. Get used to it or take your business elsewhere.
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
1. In May 2013, two Filiippino women were rescued from a Saudi diplomatic compound in Virginia where they were indeed being held involuntarily. The US, in its magnificent upholding of the law, has not arrested anyone, let alone strip-searched them. Apparently you run into US laws only if you are brown and don't have oil.
2. If you look at the conditions for a T-visa, it is made clear that labor exploitation (which is underpaying someone) is not the same as human trafficking. http://aaldef.org/docs/T-visa-manual-3rd-ed%28120... Issuance of T-visas in the Khobragade case is indicative to me that there is some significant authority behind it.
3. The very same US attorney, Preet Bharara, just a couple of weeks ago, issued an indictment of 49 Russian diplomats and their families for defrauding Medicaid to the amount of $1.5 million. 11 of those Russians are still in the US, not arrested, let alone strip-searched. Apparently you don't run into US law if you represent a country that has the practical capability of nuking you (and of course, Russians are white and Russia has a lot of gas and oil).
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
The rules governing how diplomats are treated is based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - the US is disinclined to follow that any more. In the absence of the Convention, the rules are based on reciprocity. That is what is going to be increasingly in place now with respect to US personnel overseas.
CIP · 588 weeks ago
In case you hadn't heard, the US is fighting a war in Pakistan. That war is very unpopular there but also has the tacit support of the Pakistani government.
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
2. More US respect for law on display:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/analysis/in...
Quote: When Douglas Kent, the US Consul General in Vladivostok, in an accident while driving his personal car from a gym crippled a Russian, the victim was unable to get compensation. The US Embassy in Moscow claimed full immunity and the injured was denied compensation on the ground that the US official was acting within the scope of his employment. The Embassy even prevented Kent from being subjected to a blood alcohol test as the State Department “prohibits Foreign Service officers from being injected with a needle by a foreign official.”
In another instance, when an allegedly drunk US Marine attached to the US Embassy in Bucharest drove on the wrong side and killed a well-known Romanian pop star, he was spirited out of the country.
No doubt the US was fighting wars in Moscow and Bucharest.
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
I am saying that it is recognized that diplomats will err, commit crimes, etc., but as the representatives of nations, there are certain protocols and conventions to be followed, certain courtesies to be observed. The US does not do that. It insists on its way, at home and abroad, not even adhering to international convention.
CIP · 588 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 588 weeks ago
The court judgment http://cdp-ny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Guru... lists the charges Gurung brought, including a affidavit that she was essentially starved, going from 147 lb to 84 lb in the 40 months of her employment.
To me, that affidavit is more of a physical evidence type thing than the usual allegations, and so I withdraw this from the "maid seeking green card" category, but put it in the category of a case of genuine abuse.