The "U Visa" is a dangerous scam - New Dustin Inman Society

“Unfortunately, a sheriff, police chief, prosecutor, or judge can certify any alien for a U visa for any reason they want to. There is no oversight or control; they can sell certifications if they want to.”

From Jessica Vaughan at CIS.org:

October 17, 2022

In a new twist in the case of the illegal border-crossers transported to Martha’s Vineyard, the sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Javier Salazar, reportedly has certified several of the aliens as crime victims, enabling them to apply for U visas. This is an outrageous, but sadly common abuse of the loosely regulated U visa, and points to why Congress needs to overhaul this program at the earliest opportunity.

The U visa was created by Congress to help law enforcement agencies gain cooperation from illegal-alien victims of serious crimes in order to facilitate prosecution of the offenders. Law enforcement agencies who are investigating or prosecuting certain crimes, such as domestic violence, felonious or sexual assault, FGM, or human trafficking, may issue a certification for an illegal-alien victim who has agreed to assist in the investigation or prosecution.

In this case, it is not clear that a crime has even occurred, much less a crime that is serious enough to qualify for a U visa for these illegal migrants. It appears more as if the sheriff and the migrants’ lawyers are trying to concoct a criminal investigation to reward the migrants and embarrass Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whose administration transported the migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, avoiding the option for them to settle in Florida, as a large share of new illegal arrivals have done.

Reportedly, the sheriff is considering bringing charges of unlawful restraint, although it’s unclear that there was ever any restraint of the migrants at any point in their journey from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard. DeSantis has insisted that the migrants were not coerced. Judging by the migrants’ statements reported in the media, at worst the migrants possibly were misled by the individual hired to recruit them for the plane trip. Equally likely, they were simply confused about where they were going and disappointed they were not taken to a place where they could begin working right away. One immigration lawyer maintains that since the migrants were given an informational brochure that may have mentioned the word “refugee”, a status that does not apply to the illegal migrants, that information was egregiously misleading and should be considered a form of human trafficking.

This would be laughable if it were not so damaging to what very little integrity exists in the U visa program. Unfortunately, a sheriff, police chief, prosecutor, or judge can certify any alien for a U visa for any reason they want to. There is no oversight or control; they can sell certifications if they want to. The important question is: Will USCIS approve the visas in this case? Said one of my retired federal law enforcement contacts:

Wow, that is going to be interesting to see how unlawful restraint is interpreted. This is insanity. It has to change. I saw agencies try to use unlawful restraint because they knew that a crime of smuggling was not an option [to qualify for a U visa], because the aliens were of course co-conspirators. They negotiated for that trip, like one would for buying drugs or any product or service. Where the area goes gray is, did the alien complete the deal and then was still restrained? Is that in furtherance of a crime (smuggling) they agreed to, or is it unlawful restraint?

We won’t find out for many years to come. That’s because… please read the entire post here at CIS.

—>UPDATE: The liberal AJC prints a lengthy correction after demand letter from the Dustin Inman Society. More news on this coming soon.

__________

Daily Signal News report (‘DEFAMATORY’: Conservative Demands Swing-State Newspaper Retract ‘Hate Group’ Smear’)
on the recent AJC attack here by the great Tyler O’Neil.

_______

I added educational hyperlinks to the below letter – dak.

_______

October 18, 2024

VIA U.S. REGULAR MAIL & E-MAIL

Leroy Chapman, Jr., Editor in Chief THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION 223 Perimeter Center Pkwy NE Atlanta, Georgia 30346

Re: Demand for Retraction and Apology

Dear Mr. Chapman, Jr.:

I write on behalf of my client, the Dustin Inman Society (DIS), to demand an immediate retraction and apology for the defamatory statements published in your October 7, 2024, article titled “Democrats in this Georgia district are backing a write-in candidate” by Tia Mitchell.

Through use of internet links, the AJC article wrongfully characterizes the Dustin Inman Society as a “Marietta-based anti-immigration hate group.” This characterization is false, defamatory, and published with actual malice. The Dustin Inman Society pushes for secure borders, is not “anti-immigration” and its proprietors do not hate anyone. Rather, DIS advocates for enforcement of U.S. immigration laws and actively opposes unlawful immigration. This distinction is crucial and well-known to staff at your publication.

I paste the offending paragraph from the AJC story:

“A search of activity under her birth name, Karen Sacandy, which Stamper legally changed in 2019, showed that she previously was aligned with a Marietta-based anti-immigration hate group. The group’s website often linked to Sacandy’s activities, like a letter seeking information about the state’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board and a copy of a letter to the editor supporting legislation to prevent immigrants claiming asylum from obtaining driver’s licenses.”

HEMMER WESSELS MCMURTRY PLLC
250 Grandview Drive, Suite 500, Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017 ● Phone 859.344.1188 ● Fax 859.578.3869

October 18, 2024 Page 2

We note the AJC informs readers that the Dustin Inman Society “often” linked to Karen Sacandy/Kate Stamper activities — but produces only two occasions.

Your story, for which DIS founder and president D.A. King was not contacted, informs readers that Sacandy/Stamper “was aligned” with the Dustin Inman Society. We note that polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the federal offense of illegal immigration. Since the letter posted on the DIS site was a published missive to the editor at the Cherokee Tribune, we must ask: does this make that newspaper a “Cherokee County-based anti-immigration hate group”?

Your characterization demonstrates a reckless and vindictive disregard for the truth, rising to the level of actual malice as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Actual malice in defamation law refers to publication of a statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not. Your repeated mischaracterization of the Dustin Inman Society, despite having been corrected on numerous occasions, clearly meets this standard.

The Dustin Inman Society’s position on immigration is clear and public:

1. It supports sustainable levels of legal immigration through established channels.

2. It opposes unlawful immigration due to various societal concerns, including: – Strain on public resources and services
– Potential and real public safety issues
– Economic impacts on low-wage American workers and America’s poor

– Challenges to the rule of law

3. The Dustin Inman Society defends legal immigrants when media attempt to blur the difference between them and illegal aliens.

Moreover, the Dustin Inman Society’s board includes lawful immigrants who have navigated the proper channels for authorized immigration. This fact alone should dispel any notion that the organization is “anti-immigration.” As he has informed you multiple times over much of the last two decades, D.A. King’s sister is a real, legal immigrant.

While we acknowledge that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Dustin Inman Society as an “anti-immigrant hate group that denigrates all immigrants,” your article presents the “anti-immigration hate group” characterization as the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s independent assessment and statement of fact.

This smear is not only demonstrably false and ignores Mr. King’s many communications to you advising you of the truth, but also demonstrates an exceedingly unprofessional failure to fact-check and verify information before publication.

We demand that the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

October 18, 2024 Page 3

1. Immediately publicly retract the defaming statement in the October 7, 2024, article.

2. Publish a prominent apology, equal in visibility and placement to the original defamatory article.

3. Cease and desist from further defamatory characterizations of the Dustin Inman Society.

Failure to comply with these demands may result in further legal action. We expect your prompt attention to this matter and await your timely response.

Sincerely,

Todd V. McMurtry

cc: James Abely, Esq.