There are moments in a nation’s history when a single life becomes a mirror, reflecting not its ideals, but its fractures.

My name is Samuel Martínez Roque, and the truth of my existence in the United States has become one of those mirrors. I am not merely a reporting victim of a severe form of human trafficking; I am the living consequence of what happens when exploitation intersects with institutional indifference.1 

The person who trafficked me for almost four years, Ramon Ontiveros, and his associates, Alex Armengol, Dacia Ontiveros Medina, Ramon Ontiveros Baylon, Dacia Medina, in collaboration with Deondre Patrick, and also, according to Ramon Ontiveros' claims, José Valdez and Oscar Villalobos, used labor exploitation, wage withholding, forced starvation, retaliation, sustained intimidation, as tools of domination. But the deeper wound is this: because I chose to report what was done to me, the retaliation intensified, reshaping itself into economic sabotage, explicit death threats and constructive fraud. In America, it seems, the price of speaking is hunger, and the price of surviving is punishment.

What happened to me in 2022 was not the product of poverty, nor misfortune, nor the harsh arithmetic of low-wage labor. It was a deliberate strategy of control. When my wages were withheld for nearly two consecutive months, I was pushed into 24 consecutive days of forced starvation, more than a month overall without solid food. This was not a lapse, nor an oversight, nor one of those economic inevitabilities that policymakers like to reduce to statistics. It was a method. It was an instrument. It was the intentional crafting of a weapon. Hunger was deployed against me like a disciplinary measure, a silent punishment meant to reshape my thinking and fracture my will.2-3 It was not the kind of hunger that comes from an empty pantry, but the kind that comes from someone deciding you should not eat. The kind engineered by another person’s calculation, inflicted not by circumstance but by design.

In that period, I learned what starvation truly is: not merely the absence of food, but the erosion of autonomy, the theft of clarity, the slow deconstruction of a human being from the inside out. Your thoughts become disorganized. Your capacity to advocate for yourself deteriorates. Your body becomes a negotiation with pain. And then comes the shame—the shame that someone else convinces you that you somehow deserve this, that your silence is the price of survival, that your survival is conditional on obedience. Hunger becomes a language, and in that language, I was told repeatedly that my humanity was an inconvenience. My body became the battlefield on which silence and obedience were demanded. My empty stomach became the mechanism through which submission was expected. My suffering was treated as a tool, not an emergency.

And today, long after I reported, long after I followed every instruction and placed my trust in every institution this country told me to trust, the retaliation has not only persisted but evolved. It has become more covert in some ways, more brazen in others.4 The same individual who once controlled my labor and engineered my starvation continues to impose punishment, no longer through the walls of a workplace but through digital interference, impersonation, economic sabotage, coordinated destabilization, and death threats that are explicit, repeated, and undisguised. Retaliation does not dissolve with time; it mutates. It adapts. It finds new forms. When an abuser loses physical access, he shifts to psychological access. When he can no longer starve you directly, he orchestrates conditions that make hunger inevitable. When he cannot silence you with confinement, he attempts to silence you with fear.

This is the nature of coercion in the modern era: it travels across platforms, across institutions, across months and years. It lives in the gaps of the law, in the places where bureaucracy is slow and abusers are fast. It preys on the immigrant mind, on the fear of deportation, on the knowledge that your life can be treated as optional. And in that space, a space that is continously unregulated, unmonitored, and unprotected, retaliation thrives.

I have followed every rule this nation claims to honor. I have done everything the law asks of a victim who seeks protection. I have reported to the El Paso Police Department, to Texas state agencies, to federal investigative bodies: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Department of Justice, Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I have provided statements, timelines, evidence, exhibits, documents, names. I have complied with every request for information. But what I have received in return is the bureaucratic vocabulary of abandonment: closure codes, referrals, departmental transfers, and inaction.5-6 While the state’s paperwork cycles in circles, the retaliation against me grows more dangerous. My life has become a collision point between the law as written and the law as practiced, between the promise of protection and the reality of being left exposed.

This is why I am writing to you, not to ask for intervention into the facts of my case as if the Supreme Court were a trial court, but to name the constitutional failure occurring in real time. My situation exposes an unresolved contradiction in the nation’s moral and legal framework: a trafficking victim who cooperates with law enforcement is not being protected, but punished. Tools of coercion that should be classified as crimes: forced starvation, sustained death threats and manipulation of immigration status, economic retaliation, are instead functioning as loopholes through which abusers maintain power. The message, whether intentional or not, is unmistakable: an immigrant’s life may be expendable if its preservation is administratively inconvenient. And when the system communicates that message, it is not only a moral failure, it is a constitutional one.

I ask you to see what lies behind the surface of the law: a human being who starved for 24 days in a row, swallowing expired Ibuprofen medication to make the pain of hunger go away and quiet the scream of an empty stomach; a human being who watched his own body deteriorate not because food was unavailable, but because it was withheld as a method of control to force him to confess to crimes he did not commit; a human being who continues to be hunted through threats and retaliation, long after he placed his trust in the legal system that promised protection. I ask you to see not the case file, not the reference number, not the bureaucratic shorthand that reduces lived suffering into coded entries, but the reality of a person who has done everything required of him and been met, again and again, with institutional silence and indifference.

For two years, I have been navigating a landscape where my pleas for help are absorbed into administrative processes rather than treated as warnings that my life is at risk. Every report I make becomes another form, another referral, another closed case, until the tragedy is no longer the violence committed against me but the indifference that follows. My attempts to seek protection have been processed as paperwork rather than as evidence that someone is actively and repeatedly attempting to harm me. The system responds as though I am an inconvenience to be managed, not a person-in-waiting whose constitutional rights are being violated in real time. My desperation becomes an administrative burden; my safety becomes a logistical challenge; my humanity becomes optional.

The Constitution does not authorize the value of a person to be determined by their immigration status.7 It does not carve out exceptions for the vulnerable. Nowhere in its text does it suggest that equal protection applies only to those whose existence fits comfortably within political convenience. The promise of equal protection is not meant to be conditional, and yet the landscape I am forced to inhabit tells a different story, a story where the protections afforded to trafficking victims dissolve the moment those victims are immigrants, traumatized, or difficult to bureaucratically categorize. In practice, it seems my life falls into a void between statutory definitions and institutional priorities, a void where accountability vanishes and danger thrives.

What I am asking you to recognize is not only the violence of the person who trafficked me for almost four years, but the violence of neglect, the violence of a system that acknowledges a victim in theory but abandons him in practice; the violence of agencies that accept reports but provide no protection; the violence of silence that communicates, over and over again, that an immigrant’s suffering is administratively tolerable. And when the system tolerates suffering, it participates in it.

There comes a point in every struggle where a person must choose whether to accept erasure or resist it. I have reached that point. I have learned that in America, suffering does not automatically command attention, and truth does not guarantee protection. I have learned that a victim can follow every law, every process, every instruction, and still be treated as though his existence is peripheral to the system designed to protect him. I have learned that in this country, an immigrant can scream into every institutional doorway available and still be met with violent silence. What I have not learned, and it is because I refuse to learn it, is how to quietly accept a fate imposed on me by both Ramon Ontiveros, the person who trafficked me for almost four years, and the indifference that followed.

I have been asked repeatedly to trust the process, to trust the institutions, to trust that justice simply takes time. It does not only take time, it takes lives with it. Time has not brought safety; time has brought escalation. Time has not brought accountability; time has brought further retaliation. Time has not brought recognition of my humanity; time has brought confirmation that my humanity is negotiable, and in most cases, disposable. And when a person’s humanity becomes negotiable, the very meaning of humanity begins to decay. This is the contradiction at the heart of my experience: the nation that claims to champion human rights has left me to fend for myself, as though the violence committed against me is a private inconvenience rather than a public emergency.

I am not naïve about power. I understand that institutions move slowly, that bureaucracy demands its rituals, that systems are often reluctant to confront their own failures. But I also understand something deeper, something more troubling: when the state chooses not to act, it is making a decision. Inaction is not neutral. Inaction is not passive. Inaction is a stance. And the stance communicated to me, through every closed report, every dismissed concern, every unanswered plea, is that an immigrant’s suffering is tolerable so long as it does not disrupt administrative comfort. That is the message I have been forced to live inside. That is the reality I am being asked to survive.

I have spent years navigating the labyrinth between legality and lived experience, between the promises embedded in constitutional text and the reality administered by hyprocrite institutions unwilling.8 I have tried to advocate for myself in good faith, believing that the truth would be enough. But a truth ignored becomes indistinguishable from a lie. And when the truth concerns a life in danger, the refusal to listen becomes another form of violence. It does not stop being violence just because is quieter or more respectable. It is violence nonetheless.

I write to you now with the last dignity I have left: the dignity of truth, unvarnished and unembellished. I am not a metaphor, nor a statistic, nor a symbol. I am a person who has asked for protection in El Paso, in Texas, and at the federal level, and each time the silence has made it feel as though my life has no value.

So I ask you, the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,

The Honorable Clarence Thomas,

The Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.,

The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor,

The Honorable Elena Kagan,

The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch,

The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh,

The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett,

and the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson, 

with all the seriousness my desperation allows: if this is truly how measly an immigrant’s life is worth in America, please tell me—how much would I need to pay to purchase my own freedom?