# U.S. Authorities strip search Indian diplomat (female). **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 17, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591 "2013-12-17T20:02:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/161 "2013-12-18T18:15:52Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I don’t know the actual facts of the case, so I’m not not going to hold forth on it. There’s probably more to this than we know. I would like to say however, that the ‘slavery’ nonsense that’s being touted in this thread is ridiculous, and the people who’re going on about it should be ashamed. The maid was promised INR 30,000 per month, and she was provided room and board over and above that. INR 30,000 a month is a pretty good salary by Indian standards. I was making roughly that much as a masters graduate of a premier Indian university last year (although admittedly I was working in development, which doesn’t pay as highly as some). Those jumping to judgement should take a step back. > > Why does the Indian salary standard matter? Consider. The woman who was brought over as a maid would not have otherwise earned an American salary. She would have earned an Indian salary as a maid, which would have been much less than the salary that she WAS making under the Indian consular officer. So she was definitely better off than she would have been had she remained in India, which she would have, IF she had to have been paid US minimum wage. The contract at INR 30,000 was the only thing that allowed her to be in the US in the first place. Why did she abscond? Because once she was in America, with a visa that she would not have otherwise gotten, yes she was even better off by reneging on the contract she had with the consular officer. > > As such to jump to high moral ground on behalf of the poor slave is a shaky position to take. Far better to argue that the consular officer simply shouldn’t have lied on the application form. Adding in room and board and other payments in kind would have been a better approach for her to take. As things stand, she was in the wrong. Was the US response commensurate to the crime and the sensitivity of the situation? No, and I suspect that there’s more to the story. It was probably a calculated step taken by the US, and it was done for a reason. If it wasn’t, it was a pretty stupid thing to do. good post. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/162 "2013-12-18T18:20:03Z")
taking moral highgrounds and accusing slavery is non sensical. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/163 "2013-12-18T18:20:31Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I’ve already mentioned why it’s relevant. I’m making a limited point with this - the claim that the woman is being exploited as a slave of some sort by a priviliged, evil and insensitive upper class person is wrong. The woman would have been in India, making at most 15000 INR, without room and board, had it not been for the evil exploity lady. The woman working as a maid was strictly better off by agreeing to the deal, and then proceeded to make herself even better off halfway through by breaking it off. This has little bearing on whether or not the consular officer’s actions were illegal and whether or not the US response was justified. Is it your position that the contract she came to the US under put her under any sort of obligation while here to continue working for the consular official? If that’s not your position, then I haven’t been addressing your position. If it is, then I have. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/164 "2013-12-18T18:27:47Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Why not? The woman was getting room and board, and in addition a wage that she could never have hoped to make in India even without room and board included. To compare it to American minimum wages is not sensible(in the context of morality). That woman’s alternative wasn’t an American minimum wage, it was an Indian one (which only really exists in rural areas). To start with, the American minimum wage was indeed an alternative because that’s what she was supposed to be paid. That’s the law, but she was paid about a tenth of that. And while she was probably paid more money than she would have been paid in India, she also had to deal with the cost of living in New York City instead of the cost of living in India. I expect that’s more than enough to cancel out the difference. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/165 "2013-12-18T18:29:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is it your position that the contract she came to the US under put her under any sort of obligation while here to continue working for the consular official? > > If that’s not your position, then I haven’t been addressing your position. If it is, then I have. It places her under the same set of obligations that any of us have when we make agreements with someone else. Someone comes to me and tells me that they’ll give me a job that makes me much better off than I am now. Without their help I cannot be in that position, but they ask me to make a commitment that I will work for them for at least a year. Six months after I start working for them, I realise that I can be EVEN better off if I renege on my commitment to them. I hope that I would honour the commitment I made, and I think it would make me the worse person if I broke it first. Absent any other facts - mistreatment etc that would have violated the agreement from the employers side first, yes I do think the woman working as a maid should have honoured her end of the agreement. From a moral standpoint i.e ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/166 "2013-12-18T18:33:19Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I’m making a limited point with this - the claim that the woman is being exploited as a slave of some sort by a priviliged, evil and insensitive upper class person is wrong. The woman would have been in India, making at most 15000 INR, without room and board, had it not been for the evil exploity lady. You’re suggesting that rich people get to break the law because they can offer poor people something more than they would’ve normally had, which means the poor trade away their legal rights. This is pretty much an argument for indentured servitude. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Someone comes to me and tells me that they’ll give me a job that makes me much better off than I am now. Without their help I cannot be in that position, but they ask me to make a commitment that I will work for them for at least a year. You’ve omitted the part where your employer breaks the law by paying you far less than the wage you’re legally entitled to receive (and lies about it). ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/167 "2013-12-18T18:33:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > To start with, the American minimum wage was indeed an alternative because that’s what she was supposed to be paid. That’s the law, but she was paid about a tenth of that. And while she was probably paid more money than she would have been paid in India, she also had to deal with the cost of living in New York City instead of the cost of living in India. I expect that’s more than enough to cancel out the difference. Supposed to be paid has nothing to do with it. She simply would have become unaffordable and wouldn’t have been brought over. (This may have resulted in American services being used instead - daycare etc., so that’s certainly an argument for the illegality of the consular officers actions). So it’s this or nothing. She was better off with this than with nothing. And the whole point of room and board is that she doesn’t have to deal with cost of living in NYC. How does it cancel out the difference? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/168 "2013-12-18T18:36:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re suggesting that rich people get to break the law because they can offer poor people something more than they would’ve normally had, which means the poor trade away their legal rights. This is pretty much an argument for indentured servitude. > > You’ve omitted the part where your employer breaks the law by paying you far less than the wage you’re legally entitled to receive (and lies about it). What you’re legally entitled to receive in a position which you are not in has no relevance to you. What workers in the US are legally entitled to receive in the US is entirely and absolutely irrelevant to any worker who is not in the US. The illegality of the employers actions with respect to the country whose laws they are breaking is not in dispute by me. It is the morality of their actions with respect to the person who is now strictly better off than they would have been without the employer. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/169 "2013-12-18T18:42:44Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > So it’s this or nothing. She was better off with this than with nothing. In 2010, the Indian ambassador to the United States was frisked as she went through airport security. The Indian government strongly condemned this routine security procedure. If the average person does not wish to be subjected to routine security checks, they are not allowed on an airplane. So, one could say that the Indian ambassador was better off being frisked and allowed to fly, rather than not being frisked and having to drive or take a train from Mississippi to Washington, DC. From an ethical – NOT a legal perspective – would you maintain that the ambassador was better off being frisked? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/170 "2013-12-18T18:46:21Z")
> [@truthSeeker2](#): > > Sorry about bad English and being incomprehensible. I meant that apart from the salary, the maid also got free food, dwelling and various other things. The merits of the case aside, this is > A. Not a grave offense Maybe not in your country but in the US failure to pay your employees is, in fact, a serious crime. I have a former employer who is currently risking arrest for failure to pay me far less than is owed to the maid in this case. Perhaps you were unaware that employers stealing from employees is considered worthy of jail time in the US. > [@](#): > > B. Arresting, handcuffing in public and strip searching is not respectable treatment. It is no more and no less than any US citizen is treated to if arrested for a crime. > [@](#): > > But still, if thats US’s interpretation of that, we(Indians) should give them our own interpretation of article 41, acting in a way which may upset the US. If an American commits a criminal act in India please, do, treat them as you would any other criminal in your country. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/171 "2013-12-18T18:51:08Z")
**bldysabba** , you’re arguing that it’s moral for powerful people to exploit the vulnerable as long as the vulnerable receive a tiny benefit. That’s kind of immoral on its face, and in the long term the arrangement only benefits the powerful to larger and larger degrees and makes it easier to exploit people with few resources. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/172 "2013-12-18T18:52:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In 2010, the Indian ambassador to the United States was frisked as she went through airport security. The Indian government strongly condemned this routine security procedure. > > If the average person does not wish to be subjected to routine security checks, they are not allowed on an airplane. So, one could say that the Indian ambassador was better off being frisked and allowed to fly, rather than not being frisked and having to drive or take a train from Mississippi to Washington, DC. From an ethical – NOT a legal perspective – would you maintain that the ambassador was better off being frisked? I have absolutely no view of my own on any of this. It involves all sorts of questions about how ambassadors are usually treated, why that situation exists, what reciprocal measures countries take with respect to each others ambassadors etc. When I tried to get an informed opinion on this, the only incident that comes up is the one you speak of, and one of the cites I reached suggested that the security staff’s frisking a diplomat was not warranted. > **[home](https://www.arabtimesonline.com)** > > Stay updated with the latest news in Kuwait with Arab Times English Daily. Get Kuwait news, crime, business, sports... > [@](#): > > US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced concern Thursday about an incident where India’s ambassador to Washington was frisked at an airport and vowed to try to prevent repeat incidents. “We obviously are concerned about it,” Clinton told reporters. “We will be looking into it and trying to determine both what happened and what we could do to prevent such incidents in the future.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/173 "2013-12-18T18:54:48Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > What you’re legally entitled to receive in a position which you are not in has no relevance to you. What workers in the US are legally entitled to receive in the US is entirely and absolutely irrelevant to any worker who is not in the US. That’s true **as long as they’re not in the US.** The instant they begin work **in the US** , their legal entitlements become relevant. How is this complicated? If I go to Nevada and hire someone to be a prostitute and bring the person to North Carolina, I can still be arrested for solicitation. Once we’re in NC, it’s NC’s employment law that matters, not Nevada’s. And if the prostitute decides not to work for me, he or she is under no obligation to continue doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/174 "2013-12-18T18:55:45Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > What workers in the US are legally entitled to receive in the US is entirely and absolutely irrelevant to any worker who is not in the US. Was the maid working in New York City? Is New York City still part of the United States? Yes? and Yes? _Then she is, indeed, a worker in the US and her employer is legally obligated to pay the minimum wage where she works._ There is NO exception in the law for people of other nations who are working in the US. This is, in part, because of our on-going problem with the exploitation of illegal immigrants. The maid in question probably doesn’t know it, but she could drag her employer into court in the US, even as a non-citizen, and be awarded multiple times the amount of the back pay owed to her under US law. Although she might be deported back to India just after, but hey, she’d have a buttload of money to take with her. (No, I don’t think that makes any of this OK, it’s a mess, but I am extremely offended at the notion that it’s OK to pay less than the legal minimum simple because someone is not a citizen. That’s not the law here.) ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/175 "2013-12-18T18:56:59Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > I have absolutely no view of my own on any of this. It involves all sorts of questions about how ambassadors are usually treated, why that situation exists, what reciprocal measures countries take with respect to each others ambassadors etc. When I tried to get an informed opinion on this, the only incident that comes up is the one you speak of, and one of the cites I reached suggested that the security staff’s frisking a diplomat was not warranted. > > [Arab Times Kuwait | Your Daily News in English from Kuwait](http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/162922/reftab/36/t/Clinton-voices-concern-about-frisking-Indian-ambassador/Default.aspx) That link further goes on to cite some other people from your government who state that the search was warranted. If this is standard procedure for diplomats, communicated by the US beforehand, and followed widely by the international community, then I have absolutely no problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/176 "2013-12-18T19:02:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Maybe not in your country but in the US failure to pay your employees is, in fact, a serious crime. I have a former employer who is currently risking arrest for failure to pay me far less than is owed to the maid in this case. Perhaps you were unaware that employers stealing from employees is considered worthy of jail time in the US. > It is no more and no less than any US citizen is treated to if arrested for a crime. > If an American commits a criminal act in India please, do, treat them as you would any other criminal in your country. I still hope an apology comes from the US. there is still a lack of proper understanding and evaluation of the issue on their part. otherwise tit for tat behavior opion is always there for india but hope it doesnt have to come to that. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/177 "2013-12-18T19:04:35Z")
> [@truthSeeker2](#): > > I still hope an apology comes from the US. there is still a lack of proper understanding and evaluation of the issue on their part. otherwise tit for tat behavior opion is always there for india but hope it doesnt have to come to that. They don’t owe anyone an apology. India owes the US an apology for sending criminals over as consular workers. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/178 "2013-12-18T19:12:34Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Was the maid working in New York City? Is New York City still part of the United States? Yes? and Yes? _Then she is, indeed, a worker in the US and her employer is legally obligated to pay the minimum wage where she works._ There is NO exception in the law for people of other nations who are working in the US. > > This is, in part, because of our on-going problem with the exploitation of illegal immigrants. The maid in question probably doesn’t know it, but she could drag her employer into court in the US, even as a non-citizen, and be awarded multiple times the amount of the back pay owed to her under US law. Although she might be deported back to India just after, but hey, she’d have a buttload of money to take with her. (No, I don’t think that makes any of this OK, it’s a mess, but I am extremely offended at the notion that it’s OK to pay less than the legal minimum simple because someone is not a citizen. That’s not the law here.) You’re not bothering to understand any of my arguments. I am not claiming an exception to the law. I’m claiming that the sense of moral outrage in this thread that this poor woman was being treated as a slave and cruelly exploited is ridiculous and misplaced. The poor woman in question was much better off than she would have been if she hadn’t been thus ‘cruelly exploited’. You forget that she would never have been in NYC in the first place without the consul officer bringing her there, under an agreement that made her better off by far than continuing to stay in India. Is that agreement illegal under US law? Sure. So did the consul officer commit a crime in the US? Sure. Especially when she lied about the agreement. But did her actions, incogruent as they were with US minimum wage laws, leave the woman she employed much better off than she would have been in India, even if all this had not come to light? Also yes. In effect, I’m saying that the US prosecuting the consul officer for lying on the application documents and dodging minimum wage laws is justified (although how they went about her arrest etc is stupid given the context). But at the same time, given the facts we have, people in this thread rushing to judge the consul officer for ‘exploiting’ her maid and treating her badly or as a slave are wrong. It is simply not that black and white, although I can see how as an American you would want it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/179 "2013-12-18T19:14:31Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > It places her under the same set of obligations that any of us have when we make agreements with someone else. > > Someone comes to me and tells me that they’ll give me a job that makes me much better off than I am now. Without their help I cannot be in that position, but they ask me to make a commitment that I will work for them for at least a year. Six months after I start working for them, I realise that I can be EVEN better off if I renege on my commitment to them. I hope that I would honour the commitment I made, and I think it would make me the worse person if I broke it first. Absent any other facts - mistreatment etc that would have violated the agreement from the employers side first, yes I do think the woman working as a maid should have honoured her end of the agreement. From a moral standpoint i.e I would be more sympathetic to your position if she had not (allegedly) lied on the visa application. If she was taking a principled stand on the proper treatment of the lower classes or had even been absent-minded, that would be one thing. But she was told what the US required of her; she promised that she would do it; she recieved a visa based on that promise; and she did not do it. That’s a crime. It’s also a rather poor character trait for someone representing your country overseas. Think of it this way, this woman is being subjected to the “same set of obligations that any of us have when we make agreements with someone else.” ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591/180 "2013-12-18T19:17:27Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > You’re not bothering to understand any of my arguments. I am not claiming an exception to the law. I’m claiming that the sense of moral outrage in this thread that this poor woman was being treated as a slave and cruelly exploited is ridiculous and misplaced. **The poor woman in question was much better off than she would have been if she hadn’t been thus ‘cruelly exploited’.** You forget that she would never have been in NYC in the first place without the consul officer bringing her there, under an agreement that made her better off by far than continuing to stay in India. [You’re in good company.](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/opinion/blow-escaping-slavery.html) > [@](#): > > Robert E. Lee wrote in 1856: “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.” > [@](#): > > For instance, in October, The Arkansas Times reported that Jon Hubbard, a Republican state representative, wrote in a 2009 self-published book that “the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-authorities-strip-search-indian-diplomat-female/676591.md?page=10)