Image Credits: @barbarazandoval on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

Many asylum seekers reside in San Antonio; some live in shelters, others on the sides of the streets. These migrants face a sobering reality: find a place to stay, or get deported. After being approached by a woman who introduced herself as “Perla,” the migrants thought that a reprieve from their struggles may soon be in sight.

“Perla” did not introduce herself with a last name, but instead came bearing promises that anyone in a situation similar to that of asylum seekers would wish to believe. She promised “up to eight months of cash assistance,” and offered $10 McDonald’s gift cards to those who signed waivers; waivers that the migrants could not understand due to language barriers. It is also important to note that asylum seekers are not eligible for the aid promised by Perla, thus confirming that her claims were misleading.

But desperate as they were – as are millions in similar situations – 48 immigrants agreed to Perla’s requests and were quickly flown from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard. They assumed that they would be treated with the respect and due process that the United States enshrines in its constitution. However, that would not be the case.

In the weeks following the move, investigators have uncovered some key facts about what really went on with this shipment of migrants. Perla Huerta, now on the run from potential legal prosecution, is a former Army counterintelligence agent. She was ordered by Senator Ron DeSantis to round up immigrants in San Antonio to have them shipped off to Martha’s Vineyard. This move followed similar responses by his Republican colleagues also “protesting” the unfairness of the influx of migrants in southern states  – an influx that northern states do not experience. Open about the fact that this was indeed a political stunt, DeSantis claims that the migrants’ journeys were “clearly voluntary” and that no laws were broken.

Using humans as political pawns is not a legally punishable offense on its own, and legal punishment must be bound in the law. In fact, there are analysts and lawyers alike that do believe that certain laws were broken by DeSantis, Perla, and the Florida Government. The charges relate mainly to potential violations of immigration law and the Texas Penal Code, with a class action lawsuit already having been filed.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 is a statute that prohibits the transport or attempted transport of undocumented immigrants who are “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact” that the migrant “has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.” The statute continues, stating that such transport is “in furtherance of such violation of law.” However, it appears that this Code would not apply in this specific case, because the immigrants had already been released by the Department of Homeland Security, and were allowed to remain in the U.S. while their immigration proceedings were pending. Thus, they were not in the U.S. “in violation of the law.” This idea is supported by a 2018 analysis by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild that concluded that “the government would have to prove the migrant was in the country unlawfully,” which, in this case, they were not. 

According to the text of the 2022 “Freedom First Budget,” the fiscal year 2022-23 Budget “creates a 12 million program within the Florida Department of Transportation to facilitate the transport of unauthorized aliens out of Florida.” The Florida Budget archives make clear that DeSantis employed “Vertol Systems Company” to carry the immigrants from Florida to northern East Coast states. It was recorded that 615,000 dollars were initially used for this trip. That number was then followed by another 950,000 less than two weeks later. The first payment was for “project 1” and the second payment for “projects two and three.” So far, Florida officials have only acknowledged the initial flights. Given that the funds for these “projects” came from Florida’s State budget that was meant to “transport unauthorized aliens out of Florida,” Michael Barfield, who is the director of public access at the Florida Center for Government Accountability, stated that “I do believe there is a misuse of state funds.”

However, “misuse of state funds” is a charge far from the seriousness presented by a potential Penal Code Violation case – especially one relating to human trafficking or kidnapping. 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services defines human trafficking as “a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers may lure individuals with false promises of employment and a better life.” This definition continues with the following: “traffickers and abusers often use a lack of immigration status to exploit and control victims.” In order for the actions of authorities on the ground in Florida to truly fit into these definitions of human trafficking and/or modern-day slavery, there must be unequivocal proof that the immigrants were coerced in a forceful, planned manner. So, were the immigrants fairly and fully informed of all matters pertaining to their displacement from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard?

According to the Martha’s Vineyard Times, there were maps – turned over to authorities by some of the immigrants – that showed the migrants where they thought they were being taken on the planes. One map was seen to have the entire United States on it and had a straight line from Texas to Massachusetts. This was accurate. However, the migrants – as previously mentioned – were also promised cash assistance, housing, and expedited work permits, among other monetary and housing-related benefits; none of these promises were fulfilled, nor were they intended to be fulfilled. 

Were Perla’s actions – with respect to her intent to defraud or harm the Migrants, as well as luring them onto a plane which would eventually take them out of state – a violation of state laws? Well, Texas’s State Penal code section 32.51(b-1) provides that “the actor is presumed to have the intent to harm or defraud another if the actor possesses: (1) the identifying information of three or more other persons.” Here, “Identifying information” pertains to that which includes “information that alone or in conjunction with other information identifies a person, including a person’s: (A) name and date of birth” Id. § 32.51(a)(1) (West 2021). Given the fact that Perla had the identifying information of at least 48 people, the threshold appears to easily have been met. 

Since it was Perla on the ground in San Antonio, and not DeSantis, is it possible that Perla’s actions a, and the legal repercussions of such actions, can also be applied to DeSantis – especially those pertaining to such actions that DeSantis did not directly commit? Texas Penal Code Ann. § 7.01 states that a person “is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.” This statute holds that an actor is “criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another” if they are “acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense” and if “he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.” Following the precedent set by Fricks vs State, this provision allows the state to hold an actor criminally responsible even when he is not the “principal actor.”

Based on Texas’s Penal Code and the precedent set in Fricks vs State, it can be reasonably inferred that Governor DeSantis’s actions have violated several laws.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to provide any indication of whether or not they will investigate this incident; however, the Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, stated in Bloomberg that their agency had received “a number of inquiries and letters” about the incident. However, there can be no sort of legal repercussion for DeSantis’s actions unless the DOJ decides to investigate Florida’s actions. 

The White House also has yet to commit to a thorough investigation of DeSantis’s actions, nor have they commented on whether Texas governor, Greg Abbott, and Arizona governor, Doug Ducey, acted unconstitutionally by interfering with the federal government’s authority to manage immigration. It may be up to the Texas State Attorney General to open an investigation into the matter – since it was the state where the most laws were directly violated. 

The formerly “promised land” that the United States represented for newly arriving immigrants in San Antonio, Texas is now, for them, a land resembling coercion and deceit. Governor DeSantis openly intended to use these immigrants as his political pawns – something he has proudly admitted to. However, nobody in the United States is above the law, and there is clear evidence that could implicate DeSantis. However, the particulars of the case which rest on the potential misuse of state funds, violations of Texas state law, and human trafficking charges – are all subjective and may be difficult to argue to a jury.  It will now be up to the courts to decide whether behavior like this is tolerable, or if the justice system’s slow erosion by political influence will continue.