"victim blaming" is a loaded term to avoid any examination of the responsibility of the person who got screwed. When a drunk driver rolls their car and breaks both of their own legs, it is their responsibility for driving drunk, yet you don't find many people calling that "victim blaming" or "a lack of empathy".

Anyone who uses that term tends to be appealing to emotion rather than proposing anything of substance.

> "victim blaming" is a loaded term to avoid any examination of the responsibility of the person who got screwed.

Are you claiming that "victim blaming" isn't a thing? There are plenty of people that want to shuttle blame/responsibility around, and will blame the victim for not making better choices, while absolving all others of guilt.

Take this incident as an example:

"Well, none of those employees are being forced to work there, so it's their own fault for not getting paid. They should have just chosen a more trust-worthy employer!"

> Are you claiming that "victim blaming" isn't a thing?

I think the point is clear: "victim blaming" isn't a thing" isn't that claim, so why are you asking?

Your example is one where some fault lies with the employee, namely employment due-diligence, although not entirely. Its possible for both parties to have partial blame for the totality of faults leading to a situation. A "victim" can also be at fault, as in the drunk-driver example.

No. None of the fault whatsoever lies with the employee. None. Thus, your example is one of classic victim blaming, which is completely abhorrent.

The employee isn't the one who made the choice to defraud people. The employer did. Hence, the employer has all responsibility for what they did.

The original context was a H1B via employee who realized, or suspected, what was going on but didn't leave.

> They'll say something about being able to leave, but completely ignoring the situation being extremely stressful and scary. Victim blaming and a complete lack of empathy will ensue.