Filipino crewmen’s immigration woes — redux

Just when the Filipino crewmen thought the coast was clear, literally, it wasn’t. The antagonists — US border agents in this case — were lying in wait under cover of darkness.

It was immigration nightmare déjà vu all over again.

Last year, multiple news reports dominated the headlines about the widespread apprehension, detention, and summary deportation of Filipino crewmen working aboard various cruise liners while docked in American ports.

One report had around 20 Filipino crewmembers of the Carnival Sunshine cruise ship in Virginia being questioned, detained, and deported by US immigration authorities for alleged violation of child pornography laws.

Another report involved the alleged detention and removal of a number of Filipino crew members serving aboard the Victory Cruise and Viking Cruise vessels in Michigan a few weeks before.

Additionally, 11 Royal Caribbean crew members from the Philippines were reportedly detained, although only one was arrested and charged with possession of 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 to the Philippines around the same time last year.

Fast forward to April of this year. Just when everyone thought the Filipino crewmen’s immigration woes were in the rearview mirror, 26 Filipino crew on various cruise liners, including the highly popular Disney Cruise, were questioned, detained, and hastily deported without being charged.

In all of these cases, the Filipino crewmen’s visas were canceled. They were also summarily removed and barred from reentering the US for 10 years.

As noted in this corner’s original commentary last year, a common denominator of all of the cases was the child pornography offense as the reason behind the visa cancellation and removal.

Under US federal law, specifically Title 18, Section 2256 of the United States Code, 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 implicated.

Also 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.

As this corner observed last year, considering the online surfing habits of young people nowadays, as well as the loosely regulated sexual content of pornographic websites from Asia, it is entirely possible that the deported Filipino seafarers might have “unintentionally” or “unknowingly” violated child pornography laws by innocuously looking at or downloading online images of underage models whose physically mature appearance was deceiving.

For the truth is there is simply no way to distinguish between a 17-year-old web poser from a 19-year-old model given the unique anatomical characteristics of certain types of women, especially of the Eastern European and Scandinavian variety.

Still, because a crewman’s visa has long been considered by anti-immigration proponents as a convenient platform for “jumping ship” in order to enter the US illegally, the cancellation of a crewman’s visa has become more prevalent.

It is called prudential revocation, or arbitrary cancellation, depending on one’s point of view.

Unfortunately, a simple arrest, even without being charged, for possessing or viewing child pornography may suffice under either category.