Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "human trafficking" isn't used correctly in the article? Human trafficking is the trade of humans. Coyotes don't do that, they just help people get from one place to the other.
You're definitely right about that human trafficking implies a lack of consent from those being moved which people smuggling doesn't. And if the coyote profiled is telling anything close to the truth, I think "people smuggler" would be the proper term for him.
Deciding which term to use for coyotes in general is harder. They're definitely people smugglers, that's essentially the definition of the job. But a lot of them are also human traffickers to various extents.
The people being smuggled pay a network to start their journey, and if they make it to their destination they'll likely be free from the coyotes, but in between their position is a lot like trafficking victims. It's pretty common to extort travelers for whatever they have left, abandon the agreement (e.g. by taking them somewhere other than promised to get a payoff, or stranding them with no compensation to avoid police), or outright force them into things they never agreed to like drug trafficking or the sex trade. As the article notes, '“Those taking money from the top are the same ones taking money from the bottom,” Zambrano tells me. Although coyotes are described in the news as not having much reach, they actually try to steer the migration flow based on their own interests, at the expense of refugees.'
From multiple sources: Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.
A coyote smuggles people but the status of the people being smuggled varies. Either the people pay the coyote up front for safe crossing but many can't afford the price. So they are promised a "job" in order to work off their coyote debt. Job being a euphemism for bondage/slavery doing god knows what. So it's a safe bet to say that coyotes participate in human trafficking.
None of that is alleged in the linked article, though. Also, and I think most folks here might be missing the distinction: the article is about refugees from Venezuela fleeing to South American destinations, not border crossing into the USA.
No. "Human trafficking" is a term of art in the international community. It has a formal definition and standardized usage. The wikipedia page is as good an overview as any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
Related, isn't it weird that we euphemize slavery as "human trafficking" these days? I don't think anyone who says that is actually trying to make slavery sound friendlier, but it's odd that we do it at all.
> Related, isn't it weird that we euphemize slavery as "human trafficking" these days?
It's it so much a euphemism (designed to make it sound better) as avoidance of endless debate over whether things which aren't chattel ownership are really strictly the same thing as “slavery”.
ha It's always fascinating to me how language evolves. For some reason I thought this would be about hunting and skinning coyotes, as in the varmints I hunted as a kid, not people smuggling folks across the boarder. I read the URL as carcass, not caracas. I should know better than to think something like that would be a thread on Hacker News.
A better term would be people smuggling.