Pinoy crewmen’s immigration woes

Pinoy crewmen’s immigration woes | Daily Tribune

Within the last month or so, disturbing news reports suddenly sprung up regarding the widespread apprehension, detention and summary deportation of Filipino crewmen working aboard cruise liners while docked at US ports.

According to one report, sometime in March and April of this year, around 20 Filipino crew members on the cruise ship Carnival Sunshine in Norfolk, Virginia were questioned by US immigration authorities regarding alleged violations of child pornography laws.

The crewmen denied the allegations and voluntarily handed over their cellphones to try and clear their names. Eventually, they were released without being charged. Recently, however, they were detained once again and accused, but not charged, with possessing child pornography.

This time, their crewman visas were canceled. They were also barred from reentering the US for 10 years.

This comes on the heels of the reported detention and deportation of 13 Filipino crew members on two Victory Cruise ships in the Great Lakes recently, as well as the reported removal of a number of Filipino crewmen serving aboard Viking Cruise vessels in Michigan a few weeks ago.

Additionally, 11 Royal Caribbean crew members were reportedly detained a few months ago, although only one individual was arrested and charged with possessing child pornography. The rest were summarily deported without charges.

Another 80 Filipino seafarers were reportedly rounded up from two Carnival Cruise ships in Florida and deported back to the Philippines sometime between April and May of this year.

Notably in almost all of the cases, no right to counsel or concrete evidentiary information regarding the charges was provided.

Interestingly, and however awkward this topic may be, there seemed to be a common denominator among all of these cases: possession of child pornography as the reason for the visa cancellation and deportation.

Under US federal law, specifically Title 18, Section 2256 of the United States Code (USC), any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age) is considered child pornography, regardless of the presence of sexual activity. Hence, any unclothed image of a minor, if sexually suggestive, is included.

Similarly included are photos, videos, digital or computer-generated images, as well as undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image.

Given the online surfing habits of young people nowadays, as well as the loosely regulated sexual content of pornographic websites from Asia, could it be that the deported Filipino crew members might have “unintentionally” or “unknowingly” violated child pornography laws by looking at or downloading online images of underage models who look physically older?

For the truth is, there is simply no way to distinguish a 17-year-old web poser from a 19-year-old model when the anatomical make-up of certain ethnic races comes into play, especially of the Caucasian variety.

However, because a crewman’s visa has long been considered a restrictive immigration platform that has gradually become a convenient launch pad for thousands of “jump ship” violators, the cancellation of a crewman’s visa or landing permit has been made relatively easy like taking candy from a baby.