# Sint Maarten - United States Department of State

- Sint Maarten National Day HomeThe Secretary of State Remarks &amp; Releases&#8230;Sint Maarten National Day				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Sint Maarten National Day																																		Press Statement																														November 13, 2023																																							On behalf of the people of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of&nbsp;Sint Maarten on your Sint Maarten&nbsp;Day celebration.&nbsp;&nbsp;The longstanding friendship between our two countries&nbsp;demonstrates the people-to-people ties, shared history, and common values that bind us.&nbsp; We partner together through joint law enforcement efforts to disrupt transnational criminal networks and make Sint Maarten and the United States safer for all our citizens.&nbsp; Our combined efforts to expand opportunities for entrepreneurs, especially for young people and women, will further economic growth and strengthen our cultural ties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wishing the people of Sint Maarten a happy Sint Maarten Day&nbsp;and looking forward to building a brighter future for our people in the years to come.						Tags																					Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs																																														Combating Drugs and Crime																																							Economic Affairs																																							Entrepreneurship																															Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State																								Sint Maarten
- Press briefing with Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Todd D.  Robinson, Assistant SecretaryBureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsMODERATOR:  Greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Media Hub of the Americas in Miami, Florida.  I would like to welcome our participants who have dialed in from the United States and across the region.  This is an on-the-record press briefing with the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Todd D. Robinson. Assistant Secretary Robinson will discuss outcomes from Friday’s virtual ministerial to launch a Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats as well as next steps for the global coalition.  This coalition seeks to unite countries worldwide in a concerted effort to prevent the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs, identify emerging drug trends, and respond effectively to their public health impacts. As a reminder, today’s briefing is on the record.  And with that, I will turn it over to Assistant Secretary Robinson. ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Thank you for joining this call today and for the opportunity to discuss the collective efforts we have undertaken to confront the important issue of synthetic drugs. Last Friday, as you know, Secretary Blinken hosted a virtual ministerial to launch a Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.  Nearly 100 countries and international organizations participated in the launch, underscoring the shared concern about this public health and national security threat.  The coalition aims to unite countries worldwide in a concerted effort to combat the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs.  Together, we hope to strengthen efforts to prevent the production and trafficking of illicit synthetic drugs, identify emerging synthetic drug trends and use patterns, and promote efforts to respond effectively to the public health impacts they impose. Participants at the ministerial underscored the importance of sharing data and increasing efforts to mitigate the health impact of synthetic drug use.  As you all already know, synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamine pose a grave risk to the health and security of our citizens here in the United States.  The consequences of these drugs are devastating as evidenced by the alarming statistics. In 2022, the CDC estimated that nearly 110,000 Americans lost their lives to drug overdoses.  Recognizing the gravity of this situation, the Biden administration is fully committed to preventing drug use and minimizing its negative impact.  We understand the importance of connecting individuals to treatment and supporting the more than 20 million Americans in recovery.  President Biden’s National Drug Control Strategy has allocated a substantial $24 billion dollars in this fiscal year to strengthen drug-related public health interventions.  These measures not only safeguard the health of our citizens, but also exemplify our dedication at home as we look to other nations to also take action. It is vital to note that these dangers are not limited to the United States.  More countries than ever are facing an increasing threat from synthetic drugs like tramadol, Captagon, MDMA, and Ketamine.  Criminals are constantly innovating to create new synthetic drugs, adjusting formulas to avoid international controls and domestic regulations, and creating new demand.   One staggering number to note:  Over the past decade, more than 1,100 new synthetic drugs were detected and reported by the United Nations.  Through the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, we are harnessing international cooperation and shared knowledge to tackle this crisis head on.  By working together, we can more effectively disrupt the illicit synthetic drug supply chains, enhance our ability to identify and respond to emerging threats, and protect the lives and well-being of our own citizens and of people around the world. The United States has already been working with partners like Mexico, Canada, and other countries to drive urgent global action to disrupt the synthetic drug trade from beginning to end.  We are engaging with countries such as India to strengthen our partnerships on securing pharmaceutical and chemical supply chains to prevent criminal diversion of dual-use precursor chemicals, and we remain committed to engaging with the PRC to address the threat illicit synthetic drugs pose to our countries.  The Department of State also works within the UN, the Organization of American States, the G7, G20, and other organizations to improve the abilities of our countries to detect and disrupt the illicit manufacturing, diversion, and trafficking of precursor chemicals and finished drugs.   We have more important work to do, so in closing, let me express my gratitude to our international partners who have already joined us in this crucial endeavor.  The fight against synthetic drugs requires a global response, and we are confident that our collective efforts will yield significant results.  Together, we can create a safer and healthier future for our citizens and generations to come.   Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.   MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Assistant Secretary.  We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  For those on the English line asking questions, please limit yourself to one question related to the topic of today’s briefing.  If you submitted your question in advance, I have incorporated the question into the queue.  Our first question today we received from Daniel – from Jim Carson of La Jornada in Mexico:  “What specific will be new out of this declaration?  Are you setting up a FinCEN-type structure to share information, do evaluations, and a secretariat, or is it simply a reiteration of past commitments without any specific additional actions?”   ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Great question.  The first thing I would say is we are – we are building on what we have done in the past and what has been done by other countries in the past.  The coalition is intended to be an inclusive forum for sharing best practices and identifying areas for collaboration to improve the global response to public health and security threats posed by synthetic drugs.  We ask that countries commit to working collaboratively with other coalition member countries at both political and technical levels to develop a joint framework for addressing synthetic drugs and develop actions in line with that framework.  Thanks.   MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We received a question from journalist Fernando Morales from Red Salvadoreña de Medios in El Salvador: “El Salvador is a corridor for the transit of synthetic drugs like fentanyl.  How is work being done to prevent the trafficking of these narcotics?”   ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  I’m sorry.  Could you say that again?  MODERATOR:  Absolutely, Assistant Secretary.  “El Salvador is a corridor for the transit of synthetic drugs like fentanyl.  How is work being done to prevent the trafficking of these narcotics?&#8221; ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Great question.  As our correspondent will note, the United States Government on several different levels is working with members of the civilian security forces in El Salvador and throughout the region – El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras – on things like investigations, going after the trafficking networks.  We have experts on the ground from DEA and the Department of Justice.   We also work on training.  As the correspondent will note, there is an International Law Enforcement Academy hosted by the Government of El Salvador where we can do training for police and prosecutors in the region on different techniques and modernized techniques for going after these networks.  So those are ways that we are – those are ways that we are trying to get after these – shut down these corridors.   MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  The next question will go to Jesús Esquivel from Proceso Magazine in Mexico.  Jesús, please unmute yourself.   QUESTION:  Hello.  Can you hear me?   MODERATOR:  Yes.  Please ask your question.  &#8212;    QUESTION:  Okay.  Yes.  Under Secretary, there has always been the accusations that the Mexican cartels are responsible for all the synthetic drugs in the United States, but as you probably know, the domestic cartels in the U.S. are also responsible for the distributions and sale of these drugs.   My question to you is:  What exactly or when exactly the U.S. Government for the first time is going to be exposing the domestic cartels in this problem and in the United States?  And also, if you think the accusations as – members of the U.S. Congress made to Mexico and threats that they probably going to invade Mexico to stop the drug trafficking, it will help in this global coalition in the case of – specifically of Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. Government?   ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Thank you, Jesús.  Both good questions.  Look, first of all, I would – I would not exactly support the premise of your question.  We have never said that all of the fentanyl or synthetic opioids that are coming to the United States are coming from Mexico.  We know that this is a global – a global effort by cartels from different regions around the world, including criminals in the United States.  I don’t think the FBI or the Department of Justice or our local law enforcement authorities have been shy about exposing the criminal networks in the United States that are trafficking in these drugs.  I think they will continue to publicly expose them when available.  So that’s thing number one. Thing number two, we have – the United States has an excellent relationship with our counterparts in Mexico.  We are both working very close to go after the networks in Mexico, to increase our cooperation on both sides of our southwest border, your northern border.  And we are working together internationally to share our experiences with working together with other countries around the world.  I’m very proud of our relationship with our Mexican counterparts, and we’re going to continue to call on them as they call on us to work together to do more to stop – to stop this global trafficking of synthetic drugs. MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary Robison.  The next question will go to Adyr Corral from El Sol de Mexico.  Adyr, please unmute yourself.  Go ahead.  Adyr, can you hear us?   Okay, unfortunately we’re going to have to move on.  I see we have a submitted question in our Q&amp;A from Brendan O’Boyle from Reuters in Mexico City: “Thank you, Ambassador.  Within the coalition, where is there concern about fentanyl’s short-term spread geographically?  In Mexico, some experts have sounded alarm about fentanyl spreading in drug supply domestically, though data is scarce.  Have coalition partners in Mexico recognized domestic spread?” ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  I’m sorry, can you repeat that question again? MODERATOR:  Sure, sir.  “Thank you, Ambassador.  Within the coalition, where is there concern about fentanyl’s short-term spread geographically?  In Mexico, some experts have sounded the alarm about fentanyl spreading in the drug supply domestically, though data is scarce.  Have coalition partners in Mexico recognized domestic spread?” ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  The short answer is I believe the Government of Mexico has recognized the short-term spread of synthetic opioids.  We are – and – but there’s a very good relationship between our Office of National Drug Control Policy and the secretary for Health in Mexico.  They are working very closely together on campaigns to raise awareness about synthetic opioids and what can be done to avoid falling into – into that addiction.  So we feel like we have a burgeoning story to tell, a better story to tell as we go forward on our cooperation on the messaging against the domestic – in Mexico, the domestic spread of the – and growth of the use of synthetic opioids. MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  I’m told we’ve resolved the microphone issues with Adyr Corral, so we’ll go back to Adyr Corral from El Sol de Mexico.  Please unmute yourself. QUESTION:  Hi.  You can hear me? ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Yes. MODERATOR:  We can hear you. QUESTION:  Ah, thank you very much.  Sorry for the problems.  I would like to ask the assistant secretary for a comment on the initiative to designate the fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction in Congress.  How about that, Assistant Secretary? ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Thank you, great question.  We have currently – the Department of Justice, DEA, FBI, Department of State – we feel like we have the authorities necessary to go after the networks that are trafficking in these drugs.  At the moment, we don’t see that classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction will give us any more authority than we already have to try to stop its trafficking.  So we feel pretty comfortable that we’re in a good place in terms of having the tools necessary to go after the drug and to go after the networks that are trafficking the drugs.  QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  The next question was submitted in advance from Juan Silva from W Radio in Colombia:  “How do you assess the current situation in Colombia in terms of the fight against drugs?”  ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Well, as the correspondent, as Juan will know, we have a very long, very strong, very deep relationship with Colombia and Colombia’s security forces that has developed over a number of years.  We feel like we are – we have developed into great partners.  Colombia has become a net exporter of security globally, and that is in large part due to the very strong relationship that has developed with the United States.   Today we continue in that effort.  There are areas where we are hoping to start working – new areas where we are starting to – we want to begin working with the Petro government, and we are in constant conversation with Petro and his team to figure out how we can best help them bring greater security and safety to communities in Colombia, and by doing so, help shut down the networks that are trafficking drugs north to the United States.  Thanks.  MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.   Our next question we received from Eduard Ribas from EFE:  “What responsibility does China have on the trafficking of fentanyl precursors?  How can this coalition be successful without Chinese participation?”  ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Well, I would say the – we know good things happen when China is involved in conversations like this.  You will recall in 2019 the Chinese Government scheduled fentanyl and made it much harder to get out of the country directly and be shipped directly to other countries.  And when they did that, the trafficking of fentanyl itself in the United States from China went to almost zero.  So we think that there’s a lot more that can be done by the PRC in terms of greater monitoring and labeling and information-sharing on the precursor chemicals that are leaving the PRC, and they – we invited them to join the coalition.  We expect at some point that they will take us up on our invitation because they want to be responsible, a responsible country in this effort.  And we all know that they play – that there are companies in China that play an important role in the distribution of the precursor chemicals that go into making these drugs.  Over.  MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We have time for about two more questions.  One was submitted in advance from a journalist in Guyana regarding CARICOM, Denis Chabrol from Demarara Waves Online News:  “How badly are Caribbean Community (CARICOM) nations affected by synthetic drugs?”  ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Thank you.  Again, this is a – that’s a great question.  I would say although we haven’t seen significant production in the Caribbean, it’s important to note that criminal chemists can easily synthesize fentanyl almost anywhere.  The Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats will provide a foundation for developing and implementing effective, practical solutions to prevent the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs.  It will help detect emerging drug threats, and we hope it will help respond to the – to their public health impacts.  Over. MODERATOR:  Thank you.  I see in the chat the journalist had added:  “What do we expect from CARICOM and what assistance the U.S. can provide?” ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Well, actually, I would turn it around.  The question should be:  What more can CARICOM countries do?  And I think, again, when we talk about things like exchanging information, when we talk about things like making sure that they are getting access, making sure their communities are getting access to the antidotes for overdoses, making sure that they are reporting to the international organizations that are collecting information that everybody else can use – those are the things that that we would hope we could get from countries that are involved in the global coalition.  And the United States and the international community will continue to help with training and equipping those police forces and prosecutors that are working on this issue.  Over. MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We had a question from Martin Villena from Andina News Agency in Peru:  “Concerning the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats, does its launch also mean strengthening even more relations with countries such as Peru and Colombia, which face the issue and the related problems concerning cocaine productions in their territories?” ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Well, we’re always working to strengthening – strengthening the relationship with our good friends in Peru and Colombia.  But in fact, again, we will – what the establishment of this coalition is looking to do is to have our friends from Peru and Colombia share their experiences with other countries around the world and help other countries who don’t have the expertise that our countries do, help them address the issues in their countries.  We have great relationships with our partners in Peru and Colombia; I don’t expect that will change.  But we will – in the establishment of this coalition, we will be asking them to do more to help on a global level.  Over.   MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  We received a question from Carrie Kahn with NPR:  “How do proposals from some Republicans in the United States urging military intervention to stop fentanyl trafficking in Mexico affect your plans to enlist global partners?” ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Well, I would say we’re going to let Congress – the Senate and the House – develop and debate their own ideas.  We are going to – I am focused on working with our civilian security partners globally, making sure that they have the training, the equipment, the strategies; making sure they have access to the expertise necessary to focus on what is our responsibility, which is providing civilian security to our communities, both in the United States and around and world. MODERATOR:  Thank you, Assistant Secretary.  I believe we’ve gone through all the questions that we had today, so that will conclude today’s briefing.  I wanted to thank you for joining us today, as well as all of the journalists on the line for their questions.  If you have any follow-up questions about today’s briefing, you may contact the Miami Media Hub at MiamiHub@state.gov.  An English recording and transcript will be available for this briefing, as well as transcripts in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.  Thank you so much and have a good day. ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROBINSON:  Thanks.  Thanks, everybody. 
- Sint Maarten HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2023 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;Sint Maarten				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																						2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Sint Maarten																																																																																												 In this section										/																							SINT MAARTEN (Tier 3)*																																													SINT MAARTEN (Tier 3)*																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																																																																								SINT MAARTEN (Tier 3)*				The Government of Sint Maarten does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so, even considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, if any, on its anti-trafficking capacity; therefore Sint Maarten remained on Tier 3. Despite the lack of significant efforts, the government took some steps to address trafficking, including passing a NAP to combat trafficking and upholding on appeal three trafficking convictions. However, the government did not report prosecuting or convicting any traffickers or identifying any trafficking victims for the third consecutive year. Further, the government could not provide services to trafficking victims; it did not have shelters, allocate funding for victim services, or have formal arrangements with service providers. The government did not implement its new NAP and interagency coordination was severely lacking. Officials consistently conflated human trafficking and migrant smuggling, hindering the effectiveness of the government’s meager anti-trafficking efforts.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Significantly increase efforts to investigate, prosecute, and, as appropriate, convict human traffickers.Proactively identify trafficking victims, such as by screening migrant workers for trafficking indicators; provide adequate protection to identified trafficking victims; and ensure victims are not inappropriately penalized, including through deportation, solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked.Vigorously implement the 2022-2023 NAP.Improve coordination and information-sharing with anti-trafficking counterparts across the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Increase the availability of protection services, including shelters, in partnership with NGOs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and international organizations.Train law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on proactive victim identification, victim-centered approaches to trafficking cases, and the distinction between human trafficking and migrant smuggling.Re-establish the National Reporting Bureau on Human Trafficking (NRB) to improve coordination of victim protection and prevention efforts.Adopt and implement formal SOPs to guide officials, including health workers, on victim identification and referral.Inform victims and potential victims of their rights.Increase awareness of human trafficking, available services, and how to seek assistance among the general public and vulnerable groups, including incoming migrants.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government maintained minimal prosecution efforts. Article 2:239 of the penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties of up to nine years’ imprisonment or a fine for offenses involving a victim 16 years of age or older, and up to 12 years’ imprisonment or a fine for those involving a victim younger than the age of 16. These penalties were sufficiently stringent and, with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as kidnapping.The government reported initiating one trafficking-related investigation, which concluded when officials determined the case did not constitute a trafficking crime, in 2022. The government did not report any new prosecutions or convictions related to trafficking in 2022; this compared with one investigation and no prosecutions or convictions in 2021 and no investigations, prosecutions, or convictions in 2020. However, an appellate court upheld convictions against three traffickers found guilty of exploiting 42 women in sex trafficking in a 2019 ruling. The court’s decision to uphold the ruling revised the traffickers’ sentences (increasing them from 12, 24, and 36 months’ imprisonment to 17, 34, and 46 months’ imprisonment, respectively), increasing the total fines levied, and recommending partially suspended sentences in lieu of fully suspended sentences. The decision also cited concerns the traffickers remained involved in the exploitation of women in commercial sex, despite their prior convictions. Severe conflation of human trafficking and migrant smuggling obstructed attempts to investigate, prosecute, or convict traffickers; promoted harmful misconceptions about trafficking; and limited law enforcement officials’ capacity to recognize trafficking indicators and identify trafficking victims.The Sint Maarten police force (KPSM) maintained a combined anti-human trafficking and anti-migrant smuggling unit (UMM), consisting of six officers, which worked closely with the public prosecutor’s office to investigate potential trafficking crimes. UMM operated without a dedicated budget and with limited staffing; the government reported Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (KMAR) embedded officers within UMM to mitigate staffing limitations. Observers reported the unit’s resources varied based on the relative prioritization of anti-trafficking or anti-smuggling operations within the government. UMM collaborated with KMAR, the joint Dutch Caribbean Coast Guard, and other agencies, but the government did not formalize this coordination and observers reported interagency communication was inefficient. The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees complicit in human trafficking crimes. The Kingdom of the Netherlands continued to fund a recurring anti-trafficking training opportunity for border protection officials. The government did not report any substantive collaboration with foreign governments on trafficking cases.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government maintained inadequate protection efforts. Authorities did not identify any trafficking victims for the third consecutive year. For the fifth consecutive year, the government did not report providing any protection services to victims, including to victims identified in earlier years. The government did not have SOPs for the identification or referral of victims and, instead, relied on informal arrangements between government agencies. The government reported it distributed pamphlets featuring an NGO-developed checklist on trafficking indicators to immigration officials and other government stakeholders who might encounter potential victims. However, the government did not report efforts to use the checklist to proactively screen vulnerable populations, such as individuals in commercial sex and undocumented migrants, as it had in past years.The government did not have a lead agency responsible for victim protection; this role was previously held by the NRB, which ceased operations in 2016. Officials reported the government had a victim support agency that aided victims of all crimes. However, the government did not allocate funding to provide services for trafficking victims and it did not have agreements with civil society organizations to provide care services, such as shelter, in the absence of government funding. Government officials could only arrange short-term shelter for victims in “dire” circumstances. The government did not report any victims receiving shelter in 2022. The government did not provide financial support to shelters equipped to support trafficking victims and reported few such organizations existed in Sint Maarten. There were no dedicated shelters for trafficking victims. An NGO-run shelter for victims of domestic violence could sometimes accommodate female trafficking victims. The government did not report any foreign victims applying for temporary residency status; this status was only valid for the duration of criminal proceedings against the trafficker and it would not grant victims the right to work. The government last reported granting a residence permit to a trafficking victim in December 2015. The government considered residency status to be a temporary measure to facilitate victim cooperation in the trial against the traffickers, rather than a means of ensuring victims have legal alternatives to removal to countries where they would face retribution or hardship. Due to a lack of formal identification procedures and widespread conflation of human trafficking and migrant smuggling, authorities likely deported and otherwise penalized unidentified trafficking victims for unlawful acts traffickers compelled them to commit. The anti-trafficking law allowed victims to request restitution as part of criminal cases or file a civil suit against traffickers to obtain compensation; however, no victims received restitution or filed civil suit in 2022.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government increased its efforts to prevent trafficking, which remained inadequate. The national anti-trafficking coordinator and national prosecutor’s office jointly led efforts to combat human trafficking; the national coordinator operated without a budget or staff in this capacity and had other full-time duties. The government did not have an anti-trafficking coordinating body. In 2022, the government drafted a 2022-2023 NAP; the draft outlined objectives to improve the government’s anti-trafficking framework, including by creating new SOPs for victim identification and referral, cultivating civil society partnerships to facilitate service provision, and creating a national anti-trafficking hotline. However, the government did not adopt or implement the plan in 2022. The national coordinator reported collaborating with national anti-trafficking coordinators from Aruba, Curaçao, and the Netherlands to revise the MOU outlining coordinated anti-trafficking efforts across the Kingdom of the Netherlands; the draft MOU remained pending at the end of the reporting period. The government launched a poster campaign to raise awareness of human trafficking and migrant smuggling and hired a design firm to create new materials slated for release in 2023; officials distributed pamphlets outlining employment rights and common indicators of exploitation to migrant workers in vulnerable sectors. The government’s injurious misunderstanding of human trafficking led it to maintain a policy sharply limiting visas for individuals seeking work in certain “vulnerable sectors.” Rather than preventing trafficking, as the government intended, the policy likely increased these individuals’ vulnerability to trafficking by preventing them from legally migrating and working in these sectors. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts. The government did not have a trafficking-specific hotline to receive public reports of trafficking; however, it reported police emergency hotline operators could provide callers with a contact number for UMM. The border control agency maintained an immigration hotline and UMM maintained an anonymous tip line, which it advertised in awareness materials. The government did not report receiving any trafficking-related information from any hotlines.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE:						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit foreign victims and, to a lesser extent, domestic victims in Sint Maarten. Caribbean, Eastern European, Latin American, and Russian women working in bars, clubs, and brothels were vulnerable to sex trafficking; brothel owners exploit women and girls from Latin America and the Caribbean in sex trafficking. Illicit recruiters reportedly target foreign women in Sint Maarten’s commercial sex industry through debt-based coercion; women from Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking in Sint Maarten. Government officials report a significant number of migrant workers are vulnerable to forced labor in domestic service and housekeeping, construction, People’s Republic of China national-owned markets, retail shops, food service, and landscaping. Authorities report traffickers may coerce Asian and Caribbean workers in exploitative conditions indicative of forced labor. The government’s reduction of visas for foreign workers in certain sectors, including adult entertainment, increased their vulnerability to trafficking. Officials report migrants – including Brazilian and Cuban nationals – who transit Sint Maarten are vulnerable to human trafficking; criminal actors, including smugglers, may exploit them in forced labor or sex trafficking en route to the United States and Canada.* Sint Maarten is a semi-autonomous entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. For the purpose of this report, Sint Maarten is not a “country” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act apply. This narrative reflects how Sint Maarten would be assessed if it were a separate, independent country. However, the Kingdom is an important contributor to the Government of Sint Maarten’s anti-trafficking efforts.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											The Bahamas											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curaçao											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											The Gambia											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyzstan											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia, Federated States of											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Sint Maarten											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										SINT MAARTEN (Tier 3)*																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE:																																																							Tags																					Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs																																Human Trafficking																															Netherlands																								Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																								Sint Maarten
- Sint Maarten National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the government and the people of the United States of America, I congratulate the people of Sint Maarten on Sint Maarten Day.Our two countries share strong commercial, educational, historic, and cultural ties and we look forward to continuing our work together to address the climate crisis, promote entrepreneurship, and encourage economic prosperity in the region. We celebrate the many young people from Sint Maarten who study in the United States each year or participate in exchange programs and return to contribute to the island’s bright future.  Our joint law enforcement efforts continue to make the Western Hemisphere safer for us all.  We are supporting Sint Maarten’s resiliency through the U.S.-Caribbean Partnership to Address the Climate Crisis 2030 (PACC 2030).We look forward to our continued collaboration and commitment to strengthening the ties between our two countries in the years to come.  Happy Sint Maarten Day.
- Telephonic Press Briefing on Food Security across Latin America with Jose Fernandez, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Jose W. Fernandez, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentModerator:  Greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State’s Media Hub of the Americas in Miami, Florida.  I would like to welcome our participants who have dialed in from the United States and across the region.  This is an on-the-record press briefing with Jose Fernandez, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment.  Under Secretary Fernandez will discuss food security in Latin America.  He will give opening remarks and take questions from participating journalists.  And with that, I’ll turn it over to Under Secretary Fernandez.  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Thank you.  Thank you, Kristina.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Buenas tardes.  Boa tarde.  It’s a pleasure to be here.  Let me just make a couple of remarks early on, and then I’ll be delighted to take questions.Look, let’s start with where we’ve been in the last five years.  In the last five years, the number of people that have been living in acute foot insecurity has increased from 100 million to about 160 million.  And this is in large part because of climate, conflict, COVID, and increased demand.  But the world food organizations’ project the conflict in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will push more than an additional 40 million people into food insecurity.  Prior to the – to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we had a number of initiatives that were starting to make  we were hopefully making a dent on food insecurity – climate-smart agriculture.  We have agriculture innovation missions for climate.  We have our Feed the Future program and we have a number of other programs.  But what’s happened now is because of the war in Ukraine, right now Russia’s military forces have occupied some of Ukraine’s most productive farmland.  They’ve planted explosives throughout the fields.  They’ve destroyed and stolen vital agricultural infrastructure.  We now have a naval blockade and a threat of further attacks that are preventing crops from being exported.  And so we now have a situation where 20 million tons are trapped in silos and ships in Ukraine.  And as I said earlier, there are credible reports that Russia is pilfering Ukraine’s grain exports to sell for its own profit.  So not only are they destroying the agricultural infrastructure, but they’re taking the exports that could have been sold by Ukraine and selling them for their own profit, and those that they cannot sell, they are  on Ukraine’s coast.  What this does is it means that millions of people that are far from Ukraine, people around the world, especially in Latin America but also in the Middle Eastern region and Africa, are at risk of food security – insecurity.  So what are we doing?  Well, we can go into this a little bit more, but we’ve provided already $2.8 billion – $2.8 billion to food security.  Plus, there also a supplemental additional aid of five and a half billion dollars that we are projecting.  Second, there’s also – in countries such as Brazil, I know there’s a concern with fertilizer, and we’re working with other countries to mitigate the shortage in fertilizer.  President Biden has announced a $500 million investment to increase U.S. fertilizer production, to increase capacity.  We are continuing – this is number three.  We are continuing to work through our initiative, Feed the Future, which is providing about a billion dollars a year in food aid, increasing our agricultural capacity and resilience.  We’re also providing additional assistance to cushion the shocks of this crisis in the most vulnerable populations.  We’re working diplomatically with our allies and partners on improving food security and trying to mitigate the consequences of Putin’s invasion.On that score, I do want to remind you that on May 18th, we hosted the Global security – Food Security Call to Action.  We had countries and regional organizations take steps, and they pledged $215* in new emergency food assistance, largely to African countries, bringing the total U.S. funding for emergency food assistance to the $2.8 billion that I just mentioned, and for countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin – and South America and Central America.  Now what is happening is this week, tomorrow I believe, we have a – we are supporting the German-led Global Alliance for Food Security to meet on donor responses and to coordinate additional actions to increase global food security.  We have approximately 40 countries represented by foreign ministers coming as well as a number of UN crisis groups.So tomorrow Secretary Blinken will head to Germany to join foreign ministers for the Berlin ministerial conference on June 24th.  And what he’s going to do, the Secretary will work with his counterparts to address food insecurity – food insecurity stemming not just from Russia’s unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine, but also the effect of other conflicts.  And so we’re doing all we can.  We are well aware of the crisis that has been created because of the shortage of food around the world, and we will continue to do what we can to help countries around the world to meet this need.So with that, let me just, Kristina, ask you to just ask our colleagues if they have any questions.  Moderator:  Thank you, Under Secretary.  We will now begin the question and answer portion of today’s call.Our first question will go to Claudia Torrens from Associated Press.  The question is:  “Food insecurity is tied to migration.  Tell us which areas are most concerning to you within Latin America when it comes to food insecurity.”Under Secretary Fernandez:  Look, there are a number of countries that are affected by food insecurity.  Obviously, the one that we hear about more here in the U.S. are our neighbors in Central America.  But it is a – no country is immune from food insecurity.  We’ve seen over the years how different crops are affected.  I would say food insecurity continues to be a problem, continues to be something we’re concerned about and we’re working to mitigate in Central America, but also countries that can ill afford it – Venezuela, for example.  That just adds to the woes that the population there is feeling.Moderator:  Thank you.  We will now go to Philippe Buteau.  Operator, please open line 22.Question:  Hello?Moderator:  Yes, please go ahead.Question:  Thank you, Under Secretary.  My question is:  Would the State Department consider working with the Millennium Challenge Corporation to grant to the governments of developing countries or to stop the food insecurity problem?Under Secretary Fernandez:  Yeah, thank you for the question.  Look, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, we’re very proud of it.  It’s a program that was started by the first – by – I’m sorry, by President Bush, and it does good work all around the world.  We cooperate with the MCC.  We work with them jointly.  But keep in mind that the Millennium Challenge Corporation works with countries to ascertain the needs.  So they would have – the countries working together with the MCC would have to come up with a plan, and of course we would – and I have in the past personally worked with the MCC to try and help implement the projects, the programs that have done a lot of good around the world, and we continue to support it.Moderator:  Thank you.  The next question goes to Bertha Becerra from El Sol de Mexico.  The question is:  “Given the situation in Eastern Europe due to the war conflict, since both nations are producers of grains and fertilizer, what measures are taken so that more grains and oil  do not become more expensive in our hemisphere?”  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Sorry, you could – could you repeat the – what?Moderator:  What measures – yes.  “What measures are taken so that more grains and oil  do not become more expensive in our hemisphere?”  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Look, let’s start from the beginning.  We – it’s the – this is because of the Russian Government has tried to deflect responsibility for its actions by blaming everyone but Russia for the worsening crisis in the global food system.  It’s part of their disinformation campaign.  Start from the basics.  Okay.  And this goes – this will answer your question, I hope.Russia is using food as a weapon.  It’s using food as a weapon by blocking the export of foodstuffs from Russia – from Ukraine’s ports.  We are not sanctioning – now, this is not an opinion.  This is in black and white.  You take a look at General License No. 6.  The U.S. is not sanctioning exports of Russian grain, agricultural commodities, fertilizer, and medicines.  In fact, it explicitly – black and white – exempts those agricultural commodities, as were mentioned, from sanction.  So the first thing that needs to happen for us to be able to start reducing the consequences of the worsening crisis in the global food system is for Russia to stop the invasion.  That is the most important thing that needs to be done.  What are we in the U.S. doing to help mitigate the food security crisis?  Number one – and I mentioned some of this in my beginning talk – we are a leader, and have been – this is way before the Russia-Ukraine conflict – we’ve been a leader in addressing food insecurity, and in fact we have committed to work with Congress to invest more than 11 billion – $11 billion over the next three years to address food insecurity.  Since the war began, we have provided – we’ve announced $2.8 billion, as I mentioned, in humanitarian aid assistance.  We’ve got the American farmers that are doing more to expand their agricultural production.  We’ve got the Feed the Future program that has been around since 2007 at the State Department to provide additional foodstuffs to needed areas.  So we are continuing to do what we can, and in fact we believe that we lead the world in providing food security assistance.  But at the end of the day, we need the invasion to end and we need Russia to stop blocking, as I said at the beginning, more than 20 million tons of foodstuffs in the ports and silos in Ukraine.  Moderator:  Thank you.  The next question was sent by Everardo Martinez from El Heraldo.   subsidies which will help people with more purchasing power instead of subsidies only for diesel and food? Under Secretary Fernandez:  Subsidies for – Kristina, repeat that, please.  I’m sorry, I was hoping you could – yeah. Moderator:  “In Mexico, would you recommend passing gasoline subsidies instead of subsidies only for diesel and food?”  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Well, I – one thing I’ve learned in life is not to provide unrequested consejos to other countries.  I couldn’t answer that.  That’s really a question for the Mexican Government to provide, but it underscores the fact that in Mexico, as throughout Latin America, you are seeing the effects of the invasion on the people that are most needed – that are most – neediest.  But I can’t comment on that.  I’m sorry.    Moderator:  Thank you.  We have one question from Anna Ramdass from Trinidad Express in Trinidad and Tobago.  The question is as follows.  “What assistance, if any, will be given to Latin American and Caribbean countries in particular to assist with food security?  Trinidad and Tobago and other small nations are experiencing high prices in wheat, leading to increased prices to an already burdened population.”Under Secretary Fernandez:  Yeah, look, as I mentioned at the beginning, we have a number of programs.  We have the food security program.  We’ve provided over – we’ve provided just since the war began in February more than $2.8 billion in humanitarian food assistance.  Some of that is going to Latin America.  We are also working with countries.  I have personally been involved with Brazil to try and support their production of fertilizer.  We’ve provided $500 million of assistance to our farmers so that they can increase the production of fertilizer, some of which can be exported.  Over the next three years, we’ve committed to invest more than $11 billion to address food insecurity.  This is something we’ve been doing for a long time, and we will continue to do all we can to ameliorate the situation.  Again, a situation that Latin America did not create, but Latin America as well as many countries around the world that are really far away from Ukraine are feeling right now.  Moderator:  Thank you.  We have time for one more question.  The question comes from Adela de Coriat from La Estrella de Panama.  The question is:  “Will the United States enter a recession in 2023?  How much longer are we going to have escalated oil prices and how does this intercede in the food chain, especially in Latin American countries?”  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Increasing food prices and oil prices affect agriculture, obviously.  It affects the price of fuel needed to transport food.  It affects the cost of fertilizers.  It has an effect on food prices.  We – President Biden has taken a number of steps to lower gas prices to U.S. families, but also to reduce the prices around the world.  The President has announced the release of a record 1 million barrels per day from our strategic petroleum reserve, which has been critical.  And lead oil market analysts will tell you this has been critical in keeping this from rising even more.  A couple of months ago, he rallied international partners to join the United States by releasing a combined 240 million barrels of oil on the market.  We’ve also expanded access to biofuels like E15.  This is gasoline that uses 15 percent of ethanol.  Increasing supply lowers prices.  And we’re also engaging with oil and refining companies to ask them to work with the administration to bring forth concrete solutions that increase refinery capacity and output.  The other thing to keep in mind is our oil and gas industry is – has continued to improve production.  Right now, more than 50 percent of the gas that’s imported into Europe comes from the United States.  This is something that was not – did not take place until earlier this year, and it was a result of our gas producers just ramping up production in order to make up for the loss of gas from Russia.  Just already in the first year of this administration, okay, just in the first year of the Biden administration, the U.S. has produced more oil than it did under the first two years of the prior administration.  And so we are ramping up production.  We are working with countries around the world to increase their production.  And we believe that it’s having some effect.  But again, we’ve also known, Kristina, that this – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not going to be painless.  We’re all feeling it.  We in the U.S. are feeling it at the gas pump.  In Latin America that’s also being felt and it has knock-on effects on inflation and also on fertilizer prices.  So we are – we’ve always known this was not going to be painless and we’re feeling the pain, but we’re doing all we can to reduce that pain on the continent and also to – frankly, to increase the costs to Putin, to do all we can.  Thank you.   Moderator:  Thank you.  Before concluding today’s call, I’d like to pass the word back to Under Secretary Fernandez for closing remarks.  Under Secretary Fernandez:  Thank you.  Look, thank you very much for this opportunity and I hope we can do this more in the future.  I think let’s keep something in mind.  The reason we thought it was important to have this conversation is that there’s a lot of misinformation on – coming from Russia on the causes of the food insecurity  not just in Latin America, but around the world, and it’s being used for many reasons.  Something to keep in mind:  When you look at food insecurity, first of all, we were in a difficult situation at the beginning of the year, but then Russia invaded Ukraine.  It invaded Ukraine.  It captured Ukrainian farmland.  It put landmines on the Ukrainian fields.  It has bombed Ukrainian agricultural plants and silos.  It is now blocking ports – 20 to 25 million tons of food right now are being blocked by Putin.  And he’s saying that if we want that food to be released, we’ve got to cut our sanctions.  So he’s basically blackmailing people around the world who need this food today.  And then to add insult to injury, Russia is stealing, pilfering the exports from Ukraine and selling it for its own benefit.  So we wanted to make it clear that these are the reasons why the – why the food prices have skyrocketed in the last few months, that were also – I want to make it clear that we are doing all we can to help with the food insecure around the world with billions of dollars of aid, and we will continue to do that.  And then the last thing to stress is we do not have sanctions on food, on medicine or on fertilizer.  In fact, they are explicitly – black and white – excluded from our sanctions.  Russia is selling lots of oil and gas around the world.  It could do the same thing for food if that’s what it wanted to do, but it’s not doing that because it’s holding the food insecure populations of the world hostage as we speak.  Thank you. Moderator:  That concludes today’s call.  I want to thank Under Secretary Fernandez for joining us and thank all of our callers for participating.  If you have any questions about today’s call, you may contact the Miami Media Hub at MiamiHub@state.gov.  Thank you and have a good day. 
- St. Maarten HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2022 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;St. Maarten				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																						2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: St. Maarten																																																																																												 In this section										/																							Sint Maarten (Tier 3)																																													Sint Maarten (Tier 3)																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																																																																								Sint Maarten (Tier 3)				The Government of Sint Maarten does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so, even considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, if any, on its anti-trafficking capacity; therefore Sint Maarten was downgraded to Tier 3. Despite the lack of significant efforts, the government took some steps to address trafficking, including investigating a potential trafficking case. However, the government did not report prosecuting or convicting any traffickers or identifying any trafficking victims for the second consecutive year. Further, the government was not equipped to provide services to trafficking victims; it did not have shelters, did not allocate funding, and did not have formal arrangements with service providers. The government did not update its national action plan (NAP), which expired in 2018, and interagency coordination was severely lacking. Officials consistently conflated human trafficking and migrant smuggling, hindering the effectiveness of the government’s meager anti-trafficking efforts.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Significantly increase efforts to investigate, prosecute, and, as appropriate, convict human traffickers as distinct from migrant smugglers.Proactively identify trafficking victims, such as by screening migrant workers for trafficking indicators; provide adequate protection to identified trafficking victims; and cease the deportation of victims.Train law enforcement and other officials to recognize human trafficking as a crime distinct from migrant smuggling and correct institutional conflation of the crimes.Improve coordination and information-sharing with anti-trafficking counterparts across the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Increase the availability of protection services, including shelters, in partnership with NGOs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and international organizations.Re-establish the central reporting bureau to improve coordination of victim protection and prevention efforts.Train law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on proactive victim identification and victim-centered approaches to trafficking cases.Adopt and implement formal standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide officials, including health workers, on victim identification and referral.Inform victims and potential victims of their rights.Increase outreach to all incoming migrants, including domestic workers and individuals with temporary entertainment visas, to ensure they are informed of their rights and ways to seek assistance.Raise awareness among the general public and vulnerable groups about human trafficking in Sint Maarten.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government further decreased its minimal prosecution efforts. Article 2:239 of the penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties of up to nine years’ imprisonment or a fine for offenses involving a victim 16 years of age or older, and up to 12 years’ imprisonment or a fine for those involving a victim younger than the age of 16. These penalties were sufficiently stringent and, with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as kidnapping.The government reported initiating one trafficking-related investigation in 2021, which concluded when officials determined the case was not a trafficking crime. Otherwise, the government did not report additional investigations, prosecutions, or convictions related to trafficking in 2021; this was compared with no investigations, prosecutions, or convictions in 2020 and one investigation, one prosecution, and one conviction in 2019. Severe, prolific conflation of human trafficking and migrant smuggling obstructed attempts to investigate, prosecute, or convict traffickers; promoted harmful misconceptions about trafficking; and limited law enforcement officials’ capacity to recognize trafficking indicators and identify trafficking victims.Sint Maarten assigned a police unit to combat both trafficking in persons and human smuggling (the anti-HTHS unit), consisting of seven officers. The anti-HTHS unit operated with limited resources and without a dedicated budget; observers reported the unit frequently prioritized operations to counter migrant smuggling over trafficking investigations. The anti-HTHS unit collaborated with other agencies, including the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee and the joint Dutch Caribbean Coast Guard, but this coordination was not formalized, and observers reported interagency communication was inefficient. The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government employees complicit in human trafficking crimes. The Kingdom of the Netherlands funded a training on the anti-trafficking legal framework for border protection officials. The government did not report any substantive collaboration with foreign governments on trafficking cases.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government maintained inadequate protection efforts. Authorities did not identify any trafficking victims in 2021, compared with identifying no victims in 2020, and 29 in 2019. For the fourth consecutive year, the government did not report providing any protection services to victims, including to victims identified in past years. The government did not have SOPs for the identification or referral of victims and, instead, relied on informal arrangements between government agencies. Government officials could use an NGO-developed checklist of trafficking indicators to facilitate victim identification; the government reported it distributed pamphlets featuring the checklist to immigration officials and other government stakeholders who might encounter potential victims. However, the government did not report efforts to proactively screen vulnerable populations, such as individuals in commercial sex and undocumented migrants, using the checklist, as it had in past years.The government did not have a lead agency responsible for victim protection; this role was previously held by the National Reporting Bureau on Human Trafficking, which ceased operations in 2016. Officials reported the government’s victim support agency served victims of all crimes; however, the government did not allocate funding to provide services for trafficking victims, instead relying on civil society organizations to provide care services such as shelter, counseling, and medical attention. The government did not report providing financial support to shelters or other organizations equipped to support trafficking victims. There were no dedicated shelters for trafficking victims, but the government reported it could, on a case-by-case basis, refer victims to an international organization or NGOs for shelter. An NGO-run shelter for victims of domestic violence could sometimes accommodate female trafficking victims. The government did not report any victims receiving shelter in 2021. Observers reported the government failed to adequately inform potential victims of their rights as trafficking victims. Foreign victims could apply for temporary residency status, but this status was only valid for the duration of criminal proceedings against their trafficker. The government considered residency status to be a temporary measure to facilitate victim cooperation in the trial against their traffickers, rather than a means of ensuring victims have legal alternatives to removal to countries where they would face retribution or hardship; the government last reported granting a residence permit to a trafficking victim in December 2015. When trafficking victims or potential victims did not have residence permits, the government returned them to their home countries. Due to a lack of formal identification procedures and widespread conflation of human trafficking and migrant smuggling, authorities likely deported and otherwise penalized unidentified trafficking victims for unlawful acts their traffickers compelled them to commit. The anti-trafficking law allowed victims to request restitution as part of criminal cases or file a civil suit against traffickers to obtain compensation; however, the government did not report whether any victims pursued this action.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government maintained inadequate efforts to prevent trafficking. The national anti-trafficking coordinator nominally led efforts to combat human trafficking but had no budget or staff in this capacity and had other full-time law enforcement duties. The government did not have an anti-trafficking coordinating body. Officials reported no efforts to draft a NAP to combat trafficking; the previous NAP expired in 2018. An existing border security agreement between the Netherlands, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten (the Onderlinge Regeling Vreemdelingenketen) purportedly included trafficking. The government did not report any new or ongoing efforts to raise awareness of trafficking in the general public. The government demonstrated an injurious misunderstanding of human trafficking; in an effort to prevent trafficking, its officials advocated for the government to reduce or eliminate visas for individuals seeking work in certain “vulnerable sectors”—an action that could increase these individuals’ vulnerability to trafficking by preventing them from legally migrating and working in these sectors. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts. The government did not report whether it continued the practice of informing employers of migrant workers about applicable laws. The government did not have a trafficking-specific hotline to receive public reports of trafficking; however, it reported that police emergency hotline operators could provide callers with a contact number for the anti-HTHS unit. The border control agency maintained an immigration hotline. The government did not report receiving any trafficking-related information from any hotlines.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in Sint Maarten. Some brothel and dance club owners exploit women and girls from Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Russia in sex trafficking. Illicit recruiters reportedly target foreign women in Sint Maarten’s commercial sex industry through debt-based coercion; women from Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking in Sint Maarten. Government officials report a significant number of migrant workers are vulnerable to traffickers’ coercive schemes in domestic service, construction, People’s Republic of China national-owned markets, retail shops, food service, landscaping, and housekeeping. The government’s reduction of visas for foreign workers in certain sectors, including adult entertainment, increased their vulnerability to trafficking. Authorities report traffickers may coerce Asian and Caribbean workers in exploitative conditions indicative of forced labor. Criminal actors, including smugglers, subject migrants—specifically Cuban and Brazilian nationals—who transit Sint Maarten en route to the United States and Canada to forced labor or sex trafficking. There are indications traffickers exploit, under false pretenses, Colombian and Venezuelan women traveling to the islands in forced labor or sex trafficking.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahamas, The											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curacao											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Gambia, The											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Netherlands											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											St. Maarten											St. Vincent and the Grenadines											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										Sint Maarten (Tier 3)																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																							Tags																													Human Trafficking																															Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																								Sint Maarten
- Sint Maarten Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the government of the United States and the American people, I congratulate the people of Sint Maarten on Sint Maarten Day.The commercial, educational, historic, and cultural ties between our two countries remain strong and vital.  We look forward to working with you to build back better after the COVID-19 pandemic through the U.S.-Caribbean Resilience Partnership, promoting economic resilience and recovery, and strengthening regional capacity for effective disaster response.  We celebrate the many young people from Sint Maarten who study in the United States each year and then return to contribute to the island’s bright future.  Our joint law enforcement efforts continue to make the Western Hemisphere safer for us all.With steadfast friendship, we look forward to many opportunities for collaboration with the government and people of the “Friendly Island” in the years to come.  Happy Sint Maarten Day.
- St. Maarten HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2021 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;St. Maarten				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																						2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: St. Maarten																																																																																												 In this section										/																							SINT MAARTEN: Tier 2 Watch List§																																													SINT MAARTEN: Tier 2 Watch List§																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																																																																								SINT MAARTEN: Tier 2 Watch List§				The Government of Sint Maarten does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. These efforts included converting existing trainings to virtual delivery amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the government did not demonstrate overall increasing efforts compared to the previous reporting period, even considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, if any, on its anti-trafficking capacity. The government did not report investigating, prosecuting, or convicting any traffickers. Further, the government did not report identification of trafficking victims, nor did it provide services to victims identified in previous reporting periods. The government did not update its national action plan (NAP), which expired in 2018, and interagency coordination was severely lacking. Therefore Sint Maarten was downgraded to Tier 2 Watch List.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Significantly increase efforts to investigate, prosecute, and convict traffickers, as distinct from smugglers. • Proactively identify trafficking victims, such as by screening migrant workers for trafficking indicators; provide adequate protection to those identified; and cease the deportation of victims. • Increase the availability of protection services, including shelters, in partnership with NGOs, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and international organizations. • Improve coordination and information-sharing with anti-trafficking counterparts across the Kingdom of the Netherlands. • Train law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on proactive victim identification and victim-centered approaches to trafficking cases. • Re-establish the central reporting bureau to improve coordination of victim protection and prevention efforts. • Adopt and implement formal standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide officials, including health workers, on victim identification and referral. • Inform victims and potential victims of their rights. • Increase outreach to all incoming migrants, including domestic workers and individuals with temporary entertainment visas, to ensure they are informed of their rights and ways to seek assistance. • Raise awareness among the general public and vulnerable groups about human trafficking in Sint Maarten.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government decreased prosecution efforts. Article 2:239 of the penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking and prescribed penalties of up to nine years’ imprisonment or a fine for offenses involving a victim 16 years of age or older, and up to 12 years’ imprisonment or a fine for those involving a victim under the age of 16. These penalties were sufficiently stringent, and with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as kidnapping.The government did not report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions related to trafficking in 2020. In 2019, authorities investigated one case, prosecuted one suspected sex trafficker, and convicted one labor trafficker, which was the country’s first conviction under the anti-trafficking statute since 2012. Sint Maarten had a police unit assigned to combat trafficking in persons and human smuggling (the anti-HTHS unit), consisting of seven officers. In 2020, the government utilized law enforcement, including the anti-HTHS unit, to enforce movement restrictions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. The anti-HTHS unit operated with limited resources and without a dedicated budget; observers reported the unit frequently prioritized human smuggling over trafficking investigations. The anti-HTHS unit collaborated with other agencies, including the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee and the joint Dutch Caribbean Coast Guard, but this coordination was not formalized, and observers reported interagency communication was inefficient.The government addressed trafficking in persons and migrant smuggling via joint institutions, limiting the resources available for anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts. Officials conflated the two crimes, hindering the effectiveness of prosecution, prevention, and protection efforts. The government reportedly held virtual training seminars related to trafficking in persons but did not report details on the topics covered or officials reached. The pandemic caused delay and cancelation of routine anti-trafficking training for law enforcement. The government did not report any substantive collaboration with foreign governments on trafficking cases.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government significantly decreased protection efforts. Authorities did not identify any victims in 2020, compared with 29 in 2019 and 42 in 2018, and, for the third consecutive year, the government did not report providing any protection services, including to victims identified in past years. Officials did not provide updates on the status of 20 potential foreign victims identified in 2019 and allowed to remain in the country while adjudicating their immigration status, nor did the government report whether these individuals remained in Sint Maarten. The government did not have SOPs for the identification or referral of victims and, instead, relied on informal agreements between government agencies. Immigration officials and other stakeholders had an NGO-developed checklist of trafficking indicators to facilitate victim identification; observers reported officials did not proactively identify potential victims. The government distributed the checklist and brochures on victim identification for officials who might interview potential victims. Additionally, officials claimed to screen among adult entertainment workers for trafficking indicators during immigration procedures, labor inspections, and mandatory medical screenings; however, the government did not report identifying victims of trafficking through these screenings. Observers reported the government failed to adequately inform potential victims of their rights as trafficking victims.The government did not have a lead agency responsible for victim protection; this role was previously held by the National Reporting Bureau on Human Trafficking, which ceased operations in 2018. There were no dedicated shelters for trafficking victims, but the government could, on a case-by-case basis, refer victims to an international organization or NGOs for shelter. An NGO-run shelter for victims of domestic violence could sometimes accommodate female trafficking victims; in past years, the government provided financial support to the shelter, but did not report doing so in 2020. The government did not report any victims receiving shelter in 2020. Foreign victims could apply for temporary residency status for the duration of criminal proceedings against their trafficker, which the government used to encourage victim cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers; however, it last reported granting a residence permit through the program in December 2015. The anti-trafficking law allowed victims to request restitution as part of criminal cases or file a civil suit against traffickers; however, the government did not report any victims pursuing this action during the reporting period.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government maintained minimal efforts to prevent trafficking. The national anti-trafficking coordinator nominally led efforts to combat trafficking in persons but had no budget or staff in this capacity and had other full-time law enforcement duties. The government did not have an anti-trafficking coordinating body, and a regional law enforcement group concluded Sint Maarten lacked functional interagency coordination on trafficking. Officials reported no efforts to draft a NAP to combat trafficking; the previous NAP expired in 2018. An existing border security agreement between the Netherlands, Curacao, and Sint Maarten (the Onderlinge Regeling Vreemdelingenketen) purportedly included trafficking. The government delayed a planned public awareness campaign as a result of the pandemic but provided no further reports of new or ongoing efforts to raise awareness of trafficking. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts. The government did not report whether it continued the practice of informing employers of migrant workers about applicable laws. The government did not report having a hotline for public reports of trafficking and other crimes; the border control agency maintained an immigration hotline.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in Sint Maarten. Some brothel and dance club owners exploit women and girls from Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Russia in sex trafficking. Illicit recruiters reportedly target foreign women in Sint Maarten’s commercial sex industry through debt-based coercion; women from Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Venezuela are especially vulnerable to sex trafficking in Sint Maarten. Government officials reported a significant number of migrant workers are vulnerable to traffickers’ coercive schemes in domestic service, construction, Chinese-owned markets, retail shops, landscaping, and housekeeping. Authorities report traffickers may coerce Asian and Caribbean workers in exploitative conditions indicative of forced labor. Criminal actors, including smugglers, subject migrants—specifically Cuban and Brazilian nationals—transiting Sint Maarten en route to the United States and Canada to forced labor or sex trafficking. There are indications traffickers exploit Colombian and Venezuelan women traveling to the islands under false pretenses in forced labor or sex trafficking._____________________§ Sint Maarten is a semi-autonomous entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. For the purpose of this report, Sint Maarten is not a “country” to which the mini-mum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act apply. This narrative reflects how Sint Maarten would be assessed if it were a separate, independent country. However, the Kingdom is an important contributor to the Government of Sint Maarten’s anti-trafficking efforts.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahamas, The											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curacao											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Gambia, The											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											St. Maarten											St. Vincent and the Grenadines											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										SINT MAARTEN: Tier 2 Watch List§																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																							Tags																													Human Trafficking																															Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																								Sint Maarten
- St. Maarten HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2020 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;St. Maarten				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																						2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: St. Maarten																																																																																												 In this section										/																							ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																																													ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																																																																								ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡				The Government of St. Maarten does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. The government demonstrated overall increasing efforts compared to the previous reporting period; therefore St. Maarten remained on Tier 2. These efforts included convicting a trafficker for the first time in seven years and training officials on trafficking indicators. However, the government did not meet the minimum standards in several key areas. Officials identified fewer victims for the third consecutive year, did not report referring any victims to care, and did not prosecute any traffickers.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:						    																																															Significantly increase efforts to investigate, prosecute, and convict traffickers separate from smugglers. • Increase efforts to identify trafficking victims, such as by screening all migrant workers for trafficking indicators; provide adequate protection to those identified; and cease the deportation of victims. • Increase the availability of protection services, including shelters, in coordination with the Kingdom of the Netherlands, NGOs, and international organizations. • Train law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on proactive victim identification and victim-centered approaches to trafficking cases, in partnership with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. • Establish a new central reporting bureau to improve coordination of victim protection and prevention efforts. • Adopt and implement formal standard operating procedures (SOPs) to guide officials, including health workers, on victim identification and referral. • Increase outreach to all incoming migrants, including domestic workers and foreign women on temporary entertainment visas, to ensure they are informed of their rights, the anti-trafficking hotline, and ways to seek assistance. • Raise awareness among the general public and vulnerable groups about trafficking in St. Maarten.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government increased prosecution efforts. The penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking, prescribing penalties ranging from 12 to 24 years of imprisonment or a fine, which were sufficiently stringent, and with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape.Observers noted the prosecutors, law enforcement, civil society, and media frequently conflate trafficking in persons and smuggling, hindering overall anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts. Authorities investigated one case of a construction company allegedly forcing 20 workers to labor on a job site (one investigation each in 2018 and 2017) but did not forward the case for prosecution due to a purported lack of evidence; the government instead fined the construction company for labor exploitation. In 2019, officials reported prosecuting one suspected trafficker for sexually exploiting a victim, compared to no prosecutions in 2018. For the first time in seven years, authorities reported convicting a trafficker in April 2019 under Article 2:239 of the penal code and sentenced the perpetrator to three years’ imprisonment for exploiting a victim in forced labor. Law enforcement officials, including police and immigration personnel, participated in an annual regional training event focused on investigations of trafficking crimes. The government reintroduced an electronic border management system and provided training to an unknown number of officials on human trafficking, smuggling, and identifying fraudulent documents.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government decreased efforts to identify and protect victims. Authorities identified 29 potential victims in 2019, compared to 42 in 2018 and 96 in 2017, but the government did not report providing any with protection services for the second consecutive year. In 2019, post-Hurricane Irma rebuilding, as well as the September dissolution of its interim government, strained St. Maarten’s institutions and hindered the government’s ability to provide services to victims, especially shelter. Immigration officials reportedly allowed 20 potential victims, 18 from Venezuela and two from Colombia, to remain in the country while adjudicating their immigration status. While the government did not have SOPs for the identification or referral of victims, informal agreements between government agencies were in place, and immigration officials and other stakeholders continued to use an NGO-developed checklist of trafficking indicators. Police and other first responders used the Netherlands’ screening checklist (Comensha) when interviewing potential victims and suspects. Additionally, officials routinely screened for trafficking among adult entertainment workers during immigration procedures, labor inspections, and mandatory medical screenings; however, the government did not report the number of victims it identified through the screenings.Victims received shelter through an international organization and local NGOs. The temporary residence program served to encourage victim assistance in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers; however, the government did not report granting such benefits during the year. The anti-trafficking law allowed victims to request restitution as part of criminal cases or file a civil suit against traffickers; however, the government did not report any victims pursuing this action during the reporting period.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government maintained efforts to prevent trafficking. Officials did not report updating the 2013-2018 national action plan during the reporting period, although the existing border security agreement between the Netherlands, Curacao, and St. Maarten (Onderlinge Regeling Vreemdelingenketen) purportedly included trafficking; the government did not finalize draft proposals focused on addressing trafficking and smuggling. Law enforcement officials continued an anti-trafficking awareness campaign at airports and other public places encouraging the public to report trafficking cases. The government did not make efforts to reduce the demand of commercial sex or forced labor. The government informed employers of migrant workers about applicable laws and made the national hotline accessible by phone and email.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in St. Maarten. Some regulated and unregulated brothel and dance club owners exploit women and girls from Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Russia in sex trafficking. Illicit recruiters reportedly target foreign women in St. Maarten’s commercial sex industry with debt-based coercion. Government officials reported a significant number of migrant workers are vulnerable to traffickers’ coercive schemes in domestic service, construction, Chinese-owned markets, retail shops, landscaping, and housekeeping. Authorities report traffickers may coerce Asian and Caribbean workers in exploitative conditions indicative of forced labor. Criminal elements, including smugglers, subject some migrants—specifically Cuban and Brazilian nationals—transiting St. Maarten en route to the United States and Canada to forced labor or sex trafficking. There are indicators traffickers exploit Colombian and Venezuelan women travelling to the islands under false pretenses in forced labor or sex trafficking.‡ St. Maarten is an autonomous entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. For the purpose of this report, St. Maarten is not a “country” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act apply. This narrative reflects how St. Maarten would be assessed if it were a separate, independent country.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahamas, The											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curacao											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Gambia, The											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											St. Maarten											St. Vincent and the Grenadines											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS:																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																							Tags																													Human Trafficking																															Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																								Sint Maarten
- St. Maarten HomeReportsOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons2019 Trafficking in Persons Report&#8230;St. Maarten				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																						2019 Trafficking in Persons Report: St. Maarten																																																																																												 In this section										/																							ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																																													ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																															PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS																																																																																		PROSECUTION																																																																																		PROTECTION																																																																																		PREVENTION																																																																																		TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																																																																								ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡				The Government of St. Maarten does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. These efforts included the appointment of a new anti-trafficking coordinator and continued cooperation with civil society. However, these efforts were not serious and sustained compared to efforts made during the previous reporting period. The government did not provide adequate protection services for victims identified and it penalized them with detention and deportation back to their country of origin. For the fourth consecutive year, the government did not secure any convictions. Therefore St. Maarten was downgraded to Tier 2.__________‡ St. Maarten is an autonomous entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. For the purpose of this report, St. Maarten is not a “country” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act apply. This narrative reflects how St. Maarten would be assessed if it were a separate, independent country.																																					PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS						    																																															Significantly increase efforts to prosecute and convict traffickers.• Screen all migrant workers for trafficking indicators, provide adequate protection to those identified, and cease the deportation of victims.• Fund protection services, including shelters.• Train law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges on proactive victim identification and victim-centered approaches to trafficking cases.• Establish a new central reporting bureau to improve coordination of victim protection and prevention efforts.• Adopt and implement formal standard operating procedures to guide officials, including health workers, on victim identification and referral.• Increase outreach to all incoming migrants, including domestic workers and foreign women on temporary entertainment visas, to ensure they are informed of their rights, the anti-trafficking hotline, and ways to seek assistance.• Raise awareness among the general public and vulnerable groups about trafficking in St. Maarten.																																												PROSECUTION						    																																															The government decreased prosecution efforts. The penal code criminalized sex trafficking and labor trafficking, prescribing penalties ranging from 12 to 24 years of imprisonment or a fine, which were sufficiently stringent, and with respect to sex trafficking, commensurate with penalties prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape. Authorities conducted one investigation of forced labor in a case involving three domestic workers (one in 2017 involving one suspect and three in 2016 involving five suspects) but did not prosecute the traffickers implicated despite strong indicators of forced labor. Victims claimed exhausting hours, restricted freedom of movement, sleeping in inappropriate spaces, receiving fewer wages than agreed, confiscated passports, and possible debt-based coercion. There were uncorroborated media reports that officials from the public prosecutor’s office attempted to intimidate the victims into signing paperwork needed to receive a one-way ticket back to their country of origin. Victims refused to sign and demanded receipt of unpaid wages. At the end of the reporting period, authorities indicated victims received unpaid wages and were returned to their country of origin. The government did not prosecute or convict any traffickers in 2018; over the last six years, the government has only convicted three traffickers. Law enforcement officials, including police and immigration personnel participated in an annual regional training event focused on investigations of trafficking crimes.																																												PROTECTION						    																																															The government decreased efforts to identify and protect victims. Authorities identified 42 victims (96 in 2017), but the government did not report providing any with protection services (five in 2017). In 2018, St. Maarten continued recovery efforts from the devastation left by Hurricane Irma, which placed a strain on resources and hindered the government’s ability to provide services. Authorities deported victims identified to their country of origin. While the government did not have standard operating procedures for the identification or referral of victims, informal agreements between government agencies were in place, and immigration officials and other stakeholders continued to use an NGO-developed checklist of trafficking indicators. Officials routinely screened for trafficking among adult entertainment workers during immigration procedures, labor inspections, and required medical screenings. During the reporting period, the National Reporting Bureau on Human Trafficking (NRB)—the lead agency for coordinating the government’s efforts to combat trafficking and emergency response to cases—ceased to operate. Victims received shelter through the Red Cross and local NGOs. The government provided one NGO with a subsidy to assist in providing victim services and support; however, it did not provide any services to victims of trafficking in 2018. The temporary residence program served to encourage victim assistance in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers; however, the government did not report granting such benefits during the year. The government had a formal policy to protect identified victims from being punished for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of their trafficking; however, the government detained identified victims and deported them back to their country of origin. The anti-trafficking law allowed victims to request restitution as part of criminal cases or file a civil suit against traffickers; however, victims identified during the reporting period did not stay in the country long enough for prosecutors to seek restitution or for victims to file a civil suit.																																												PREVENTION						    																																															The government decreased efforts to prevent trafficking. The 2013-2018 national action plan for the elimination of trafficking expired during the reporting period. The government appointed a new anti-trafficking coordinator focused on prevention efforts and coordination of services. Authorities continued making public service announcements, generating social media and news releases, and participating in radio and television shows; however, it was unclear if any were specific to trafficking. The government did not make any efforts to reduce the demand of commercial sex or forced labor. The government did not conduct any new awareness campaigns during the reporting period. The government informed employers of migrant workers about applicable laws and made the national hotline accessible by phone and email.																																												TRAFFICKING PROFILE						    																																															As reported over the past five years, human traffickers exploit domestic and foreign victims in St. Maarten. Women and girls from Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Russia are the most vulnerable to sex trafficking, including women working in regulated and unregulated brothels and dance clubs. There are indications that some traffickers target foreign women in St. Maarten’s commercial sex industry with debt-based coercion. Government officials’ reports indicate a significant number of migrant workers are vulnerable to traffickers’ coercive schemes in domestic service, construction, Chinese-owned markets, retail shops, landscaping, and housekeeping. Government officials report that traffickers may be coercing workers from Asia and the Caribbean in exploitative conditions indicative of forced labor. Migrants transiting St. Maarten en route to the United States and Canada may also be vulnerable to human trafficking, specifically Cuban and Brazilian nationals. There are indicators Colombian and Venezuelan women may travel to the islands under false pretenses and become victims of trafficking.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Aruba											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahamas, The											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Cote d’Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Curacao											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic People’s Republic of Korea											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Gambia, The											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hong Kong											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Macau											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nepal											Netherlands											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of Korea											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Lucia											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											St. Maarten											St. Vincent and the Grenadines											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											Timor-Leste											Togo											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey											Turkmenistan											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											United States											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										ST. MAARTEN: Tier 2‡																PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS																																																	PROSECUTION																																																	PROTECTION																																																	PREVENTION																																																	TRAFFICKING PROFILE																																																							Tags																					Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons																								Sint Maarten