Shipping migrants north is reprehensible. But is it ‘human trafficking’?

When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis loaded 50 people onto planes and dropped them on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts last week, he participated in an activity in which human beings were treated as possessions to be controlled and exploited — and that’s, as Hillary Clinton said on MSNBC, “literally human trafficking.”

Or is it?

Merriam-Webster’s definition of the term adds a few words, calling it “organized criminal activity in which human beings are treated as possessions to be controlled and exploited (as by being forced into prostitution or involuntary labor)” [emphasis added].

We can dismiss the parenthetical as merely an example, but “organized criminal activity” is the crux of the definition, and in DeSantis’ case, a lot harder to prove. But that didn’t stop Clinton and others (including Charlie Crist, who’s running to unseat DeSantis) from invoking the inflammatory term human trafficking.

How about another dictionary?

The Oxford English Dictionary calls human trafficking “the action or practice (esp. as an organized criminal activity) of subjecting people to forcible relocation or coercion in order to benefit from their work or service, typically in the form of forced labour or sexual exploitation; trade in or procurement of human beings for the purposes of exploitation.” This time “organized criminal activity” appears in the parenthetical, which we can again dismiss as an example that won’t apply in every situation. But “in order to benefit from their work or service” is an essential phrase, inextricable from the rest of the definition. This sounds like an apt description of what DeSantis’ Florida colleague Rep. Matt Gaetz allegedly sought a pardon for, but not what DeSantis asked of his migrant political props.

Other dictionaries stray further. Cambridge Dictionary calls human trafficking “the crime of buying and selling people, or making money from work they are forced to do, such as sex work.” Dictionary.com isn’t a real dictionary, but it’s popular anyway, and it provides the definition “the illegal practice of procuring or trading in human beings for the purpose of prostitution, forced labor, or other forms of exploitation.”

The point is not that dictionaries are always correct. They aren’t. They evolve and adapt, they disagree with each other, and by necessity, they don’t add words until long after those words are established in our lexicon. The term human trafficking first appeared around 1904, but as recently as 2006, Merriam-Webster didn’t yet include it. Most modern English-language dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive: they describe how words are used, rather than prescribing how words should be used.

Dictionaries wouldn’t label what DeSantis did “human trafficking.” But that doesn’t make it any less reprehensible. If you’re controlling and exploiting humans for your own political gains, the fact that you’re not running a formal crime syndicate doesn’t make you a noble patriot.

What’s more, those on the left and right have already dehumanized the people who were unceremoniously dropped in Massachusetts. Most coverage referred to them collectively as “migrants,” as opposed to describing where they’re from, why they came here, or even — gasp — their names. As I’ve written before, when you refer to people by what they’re doing — “one that migrates” — rather than who they are, it’s much easier to dismiss their humanity.

If you’re going to criticize DeSantis, be precise about it. As Clinton, Crist, and others use a term that simply inflames, they are rightly accused of exaggeration — and they’ve lost an opportunity to call out injustice.

When you use a term that feels correct instead of one that is correct, you devalue your own point.

Exploiting people and trafficking in anti-immigrant rhetoric to score political points is bad enough. You don’t need to label it literal trafficking to prove just how bad.

The Grammarian, otherwise known as Jeffrey Barg, looks at how language, grammar, and punctuation shape our world. Send comments, questions, and Funk & Wagnalls to jeff@theangrygrammarian.com.