Texas Sheriff Declares Undocumented Migrants “Crime Victims” to Secure Visas

Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar made national headlines by opening a criminal investigation into the recent flights arranged by Florida of undocumented migrants to Martha’s Vineyard.  I have previously written about the dubious claims of kidnapping and human trafficking made by figures like Hillary Clinton. Now, however, Salazar is certifying the roughly 50 individuals as “crime victims” despite the lack of any criminal charges in order to qualify them for visas.  While this is clearly not human trafficking, Salazar is working with immigration advocates to use a law designed to protect victims of human trafficking and other crimes, even before any such charge is brought by prosecutors. The move could be denounced as itself an inducement, even a political exploitation, of migrants who must cooperate with an investigation to qualify. Immigration advocates were only able to get three migrants to join the initial challenge.

Salazar opened a criminal investigation into Governor DeSantis based on the allegation that the Venezuelans were “lured under false premises” to leave the Migrant Resource Center in Bexar County to fly to Florida. Three filed a complaint against the state. Florida has responded with signed waivers by the migrants.

While no criminal charges have been filed, Salazar is working with Massachusetts immigration advocates seeking to secure “U visas” for the migrants based on their alleged status as victims of crime or witnesses to criminal acts. Given the small percentage of the migrants who joined the initial lawsuit, the inducement of the U Visa program could change the situation.

In order to qualify, the migrants must claim that, being given free passage to the East Coast, qualified as “substantial physical or mental abuse.” That would be highly challengeable, but it would be up to the Biden Administration.

Florida could object that Salazar is himself inducing the participation of the migrants by certifying U Visa for cooperating with the investigation. While he is suggesting that all 50 will be declared crime victims, they might be induce to support the claims to qualify under the program.

The U Visa program was created by Congress with the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act in October 2000. It is meant to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of noncitizens and other crimes. It also protects victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse due to the crime. They are expected to assist law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.

Under the program, eligibility requires that:

You have information about the criminal activity. If you are under the age of 16 or unable to provide information due to a disability, a parent, guardian, or next friend may possess the information about the crime on your behalf (see glossary for definition of ‘next friend’).

You were helpful, are helpful, or are likely to be helpful to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the crime. If you are under the age of 16 or unable to provide information due to a disability, a parent, guardian, or next friend may assist law enforcement on your behalf.

Thus, the visa could be an inducement for the other migrants to join efforts by immigration advocates in Massachusetts who were only able to secure three migrants in the initial filing.

In most cases, the certification under the U Visa program before a charge is not particularly controversial. However, Salazar’s claims of crimes like human trafficking and kidnapping are, in my view, wildly off-base. There are other allegations of misuse of pandemic funds, though various blue states have been accused of similar violations.

The Biden Administration has launched an investigation through Treasury into the funds, but that is not likely to be a criminal matter. Moreover, Florida insists that it consulted with Treasury.

Salazar has had controversies as sheriff, including (ironically) improper transfers of inmates.

It is not clear if the Biden Administration will oppose giving these undocumented migrants visas, but the basis for the certification could be used as a major avenue for legalization of status by cooperating local law enforcement.


57 thoughts on “Texas Sheriff Declares Undocumented Migrants “Crime Victims” to Secure Visas”

  1. Democrats are Lawless criminals in every single action…. they do not know how to follow the law.
    Every Democrat and Democrat supporter is literally the enemy of the USA

    1. Would you say the same thing if his name were Jim Smith and were white? If not, what does that say about your above statement?

  2. TX sheriff getting involved in FLA governor sending illegals to MA. I’m not a lawyer but it seems as if he has no standing in the case. I would like to see his district chase him out with tar and feathers for grandstanding and virtue signalling.

  3. If he were a republican thousands of protestors demanding his removal would show up and he would be removed.
    Works both ways.

  4. I’d like to declare myself a “crime victim” of the United Sates government. Where do I cash in?

  5. Immigration fraud is a felony. He can and will be charged for each criminal alien for whom he gets a visa once wh have an administration that believes in rule of law.

    1. Like all sworn law enforcement officers, he swore an oath to enforce the law.

      I must have missed the asterisked part that said “…except for me.”

  6. Salazar …alazar ….meanwhile everyone with a student loan is about to apply for “stolen valor”…. Like Jones said he gave up two legs for his degree. Now the heroes act applies to everyone with a loan? …. A must Joe Biden’s emergency! Where is the disaster area declared? If none – the only category of impacted “affected individuals” must have been…. “Directly” impacted. directly impacted. Not generally everyone in the country but directly impacted! Read the words dear court! Covid didn’t specifically target ppl with student loans. And if it’s ambiguous read the legislative purpose. And it’s not general. Any plumber suffered the same harms….he should argue equal protection. That law….must cabin the general taking from “taxpeyors” in a general emergency there by nullifying the use of a general emergency to pick winners and losers! Use your brains! Find Joe the plumber and sue… Mention stolen valor rules and cases! Nifty!! When it comes to rational basis!

  7. Epstein’s Third Law of Democrat Behavior: The Democrats will exploit any group, individual, or situation for their own political gain.

  8. The Supreme Court acted 50 years retroactively to strike down the flagrantly unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

    The Supreme Court must act 150 years retroactively to strike down the flagrantly unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”

    The acts of Lincoln, and the consequences of those acts, were and remain unconstitutional. Those acts being the wholly unconstitutional denial of secession, undeclared war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, forced imposition of martial law, suspension of habeas corpus, denial of freedom of speech, denial of freedom of the press, imprisonment of political opponents, confiscation of private property, failure to enforce extant immigration law on January 1, 1863, failure to compassionately repatriate illegal aliens in 1863, election fraud and vote tampering in 1864, wanton destruction of cities, farms, industries and people as crimes against humanity by total war, corrupt and improper ratification of not one, but three near-impossible-to-ratify amendments in one fell swoop and under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation and oppression, etc.

    1. George, news flash: Abraham Lincoln died 157 years ago. When you finally make your way out of the 19th century into the 21st century, let us know…

    2. The court can’t strike down amendments to the constitution. But you are right, the process by which they were passed was clearly abusive and IMO illegal.

    3. There were no heroes in the Civil War. But, given that our Constitution is a document of negative powers, you are correct that since there is no ennumerated power to compel States to remain within this allegedly voluntary union, Lincoln was in violation of the Constitutional rights of every citizen of the South.

Comments are closed.