Does human trafficking really require crossing borders? Every source I find states that is a myth, and says that trafficking can occur without movement of a person. Does crossing borders really change the definition for the exact same acts? Wouldn’t it be incorrect to tell somebody who travelled 6 hours within their own state or country that their history is different than one who crossed state lines on a 2 hour drive, when both experienced the exact same traumas?
It is not about the abuse type, it is about the level of resources the group has. But this is a little bit complex only for legal and govt related reasons, and mostly muddled in the USA. "Trafficking" has "traffic" in the name for a reason--the myth is that it does not require country border crossing because typically human trafficking is only seen as an issue for country borders (at least for govt officials). Country border crossing has its own distinct term which is migrant smuggling, and is specifically about taking advantage of migrants after offering to smuggle them across a border that they aren't "allowed" to cross. This is why you will see whenever it says trafficking doesn't require movement they say "illegal border crossing" and immediately mention migrant smuggling. (There is also a little bit of victim blaming here where often govt officials will say migrant smuggling is bad yeah BUT the evil foreigners agreed to be smuggled).
Crossing state/province/country borders indicates a willingness to deal with border patrol and border check-ins, implying a level of confidence in their crime and/or connections within border staff.
Crossing borders also means that they are operating on a large scale with a client base that are in a wide range of places meaning: 1) they make enough money that it covers the cost of transport and still make profit 2) they will typically have, though not always, buildings in different locations 3) they will typically have a larger number of direct participants that aren't clientele (whereas without crossing borders, child prostitution can be as small an operation as one person) 4) they have some means of expanding their client base and it's not, for example, 1 parent selling their kid to people in the neighborhood or even to their friend from 2 cities away, and 5) they have a higher number of victims, while a smaller operation can have just 1 or 2 victims, and means they have a larger availability of resources for managing all of these people given that trafficking survivors also generally live where they work.
Crossing a border means that the person they are trafficking will be unfamiliar with one or more of the following: the area, the people, the language, the culture, the correct people to contact for help, a means to contact for help, ID that works in the area that they are in. This makes it very hard to impossible for people to escape.
Crossing a border means they have not been charged or convicted of a crime that limits their movement across borders (and yes there are crimes where you cannot cross state borders), meaning they are low profile enough to have never attracted attention and/or that they swap drivers when this happens.
"Human trafficking is therefore characterized by an act (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of people), specific means (threats or use of force, deception, fraud, abuse of power, or abusing someone's vulnerable condition) for the purpose of exploitation (for example sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal)." - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
In the USA specifically, all minors that are involved in child prostitution (sex in exchange for money/services) against their will are legally considered sex trafficking survivors. This is to do with the legal system not really having resources to deal with child prostitution (as a great example of this, the fact that a minor being groomed was charged for possession and distribution of CP in the USA). As far as I am aware every other country makes a distinction between child prostitution and child trafficking. On the other hand companies that are involved in labor trafficking are often just hit with child labor laws rather than labor trafficking.
Anyway once again it is not about the abuse type or saying that it is altogether different. Personally all CSA is CSA to me (since that is more than likely what you're talking about). To me, as someone who was trafficked, I don't really care whether someone abused me for pleasure or for money or how far we went because it still resulted in the same thing. It's just an indication of a group's resources and reach. But also if you are saying there is no difference then what exactly is the reason for calling it one term over the other? 🤷