Some Martha’s Vineyard migrants qualify for U visas, feds say
Some of the 49 migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard by the state of Florida are now able to legally work in the United States and have temporary protections from deportation — because they are considered victims of a potential crime, their attorney says.
The migrants are eligible for protections because they applied for a special kind of visa meant for crime victims who are helping law enforcement in the investigation of suspected criminal activity. They applied for what are known as U visas last year after they said they had been tricked into taking charter flights from San Antonio, Texas to the Massachusetts island with false promises of jobs and other aid, said Rachel Self, an attorney for the migrants.
The migrant flight program — a taxpayer-funded operation led by Gov. Ron DeSantis and a politically connected private contractor — was designed to remove “unauthorized aliens” from Florida. But critics, including immigration advocacy groups, have pointed out that the migrants had legal status in the United States as asylum seekers and that they were found in Texas, not Florida.
DeSantis has maintained the flights were conducted lawfully and that migrants boarded the flights “voluntarily.”
Yet the recruitment tactics used in the first iteration of the governor’s migrant relocation program have resulted in a criminal investigation by the Bexar County sheriff in Texas and a federal lawsuit by some of the migrants who have
say he was reimbursed by Trump and Trump falsified business records to conceal his conduct.
Trump’s willingness to go to the trouble, Colangelo said, “shows just how important it was to him to hide the true nature of Cohen’s illegal payment to Ms. Daniels and the overall election conspiracy that they had launched.”
Cohen, who was an executive vice president at the Trump Organization and counsel to Trump, and Pecker are expected to be central witnesses.
Blanche attacked Cohen’s credibility, saying that his livelihood hinges on attacking the former president, and insisted that prosecutors were attempting to present perfectly legal activities, such as entering into nondisclosure agreements, in a negative light.
“I have a spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,” Blanche said. “It’s called democracy.”
He continued: “They put something sinister on this idea as if it were a crime. You’ll learn it’s not.”
Here’s what else to know about the trial:
The Manhattan criminal case against Trump was unveiled a year ago by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and if convicted could face up to four years in prison. It is the former president’s first criminal trial; he has been indicted three other times in three other cities. With those other cases tied up in appeals and other delays, the Manhattan case may be the only one he faces before the 2024 presidential election. The trial is expected to last six weeks.
Before opening statements, the judge overseeing the case delivered a crucial ruling that determined what prosecutors can question Trump about should he decide to take the stand in his own defense. The ruling, a significant victory for prosecutors that might prompt Trump to decide not to testify, allows them to question him about several recent losses he suffered in unrelated civil trials, including a fraud case this year in which the former president was found liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and was penalized $454 million.
The jury was drawn from a pool of residents of Manhattan, where Trump is deeply unpopular; during jury selection, dozens of prospective jurors were excused because they said they could not be impartial. But the jurors who were selected each pledged to decide the case based only on the facts.
The case will receive vast media attention, but the proceedings won’t be shown on television.