ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal


  1. Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016

    by , 04-22-2016 at 10:08 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Last month border patrol apprehended 4,240 unaccompanied children and 4,452 members of family units.

    Via Customs and Border Protection:

    March 2016 apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol were generally in line with seasonal trends we have observed in prior years. While these March apprehension numbers are higher than those from March 2015, they are significantly lower than those from March 2014. Of the overall 33,335 total Border Patrol apprehensions on the southwest border reported in March, 4,201 were unaccompanied children and 4,448 were members of family units traveling together. Total apprehensions in March 2016 increased by 28 percent compared to February 2016.

    The Department of Homeland Security continues to closely monitor current migration trends and is working aggressively to address underlying causes and deter future increases in unauthorized migration, while ensuring that those with legitimate humanitarian claims are afforded the opportunity to seek protection. We also continue to support broader regional efforts to address the humanitarian situation in Central America.

    As Secretary Johnson has said repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration, and we will continue to enforce the immigration laws and secure our borders consistent with our priorities and values. At the same time, we will offer vulnerable populations in Central America an alternate and legal path to safety in the United States.

    Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children (0-17 yr old) Apprehensions

    Comparisons below reflect Fiscal Year 2016 (October 1, 2015 - March 31, 2016) compared to the same time period for Fiscal Year 2015 and Fiscal Year 2014.

    Click here for more information.

    Updated 04-22-2016 at 10:11 AM by MKolken

  2. Is Obama Fraudulently Deporting Children... Again?

    by , 04-18-2016 at 12:13 PM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Looks like the Obama administration is manufacturing "evidence" again to secure the deportation of refugee children.


    In order for DHS to remove an immigrant alleged to be in the United States unlawfully, it must prove to an immigration judge through “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence” that the immigrant is removable.

    To establish removability, ICE must prove must establish alienage of the immigrant alleged to be removable with “clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” In short, “alienage” means a person who is a national and/or citizen of a country other than the United States.

    DHS’s most common method of proving alienage of an immigrant is through the statements the immigrant made to ICE or CBP officers apprehension either at the border or in the interior. The document that contains the immigrant’s alleged statements is called Form I-213.

    According to the highest immigration court in the United States “As a general rule, the Form I-213 is inherently reliable and, in the absence of indicia of unreliability, may be used to establish that an absent respondent is an alien subject to removal from the United States. See Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 1999); see also Bustos-Torres v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1990) (involving an in absentia order entered against an adult respondent). Generally, either CBP or ICE (both are under DHS umbrella)”

    But in our experience, DHS created fraudulent I-213s for three of our clients who were only 4, 5, and 6 years old, respectively at the time that CBP apprehended them.

    Updated 04-18-2016 at 12:31 PM by MKolken

  3. Obama's Immigration Legacy: WWII-Style Deportation Interment Camps

    by , 04-16-2016 at 09:07 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    The Obama Presidency will be remembered as a dark stain on the history of this country, and those who have buried their heads in the sand because of a disinterest in criticizing a Democrat are complicit.

    Via the L.A. Times:

    As Ina visited the center in Karnes City, about 100 miles south of Austin, she scrutinized families for signs of trauma she recognized as both a former detainee and a family psychotherapist.

    Mothers were issued identity cards, just as her parents had been. They spoke of eating unfamiliar food at mess halls, living under constant observation and stress, never letting their children leave their sides. In the young mothers she met, Ina saw her own.

    ""I recognize that part of her in myself: obeying, of doing what I'm told, of living in fear," she said. "The parallels, the resonance, the familiarity of the situation was really clear. What happened in World War II is happening again."— WWII Japanese Internment Camp Survivor Satsuki Ina
  4. Why Immigrant Rights Advocates Cannot Endorse Hillary Clinton

    by , 04-14-2016 at 06:50 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Via Immigration Lawyers Amoachi & Johnson:

    Below is an e-mail written to the New York State Immigration Action Fund (NYSIAF) urging them to reconsider their endorsement of Hillary Clinton given that she has promised to deport children to death in Central America:

    “I hope all is well. I write to you to express my outrage on reading reports that the New York State Immigration Action Fund (NYSIAF) will endorse Hillary Clinton for the upcoming primary on April 19.

    As attorneys who represent over 300 Central American children with pending deportation cases in the New York Immigration Court and who have won relief for more than 200 children in the past two years, we believe it is unconscionable that NYSIAF is endorsing Hillary Clinton.

    Simply put, Mrs. Clinton has stated if she were to become President, she would deport children to harm in Central America. In contrast, her opponent Bernie Sanders recently requested that President Obama designate Honduras, EL Salvador, and Guatemala for Temporary Protected Status, which would ensure that no child is sent back to death or harm in Central America.

    Mrs. Clinton has appeared to “evolve” on her hawkish statements to CNN in 2014: “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

    Clinton said the main reason minors are coming is to escape violence in their home countries, predominantly Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. Amanpour asked if that meant they should be able to remain in the United States, since it is safer. “Well — it may be safer but that’s not the answer,” Clinton replied.

    Yet as recently as February 12, 2016 in a nationally televised debate with Mr. Sanders “Hillary Clinton defended her past statements that Central American migrant children needed to be sent home from the border to “send a message” to other families: Don’t come.”

    In a sharp about-face less than a month later, Mrs. Clinton appeared to have undergone a revolutionary change in policy when she said to Jorge Ramos “I will not deport children. I would not deport children,”…I do not want to deport family members either.”

    However, Clinton’s statements are directly belied by her persistent (and current) refusal to promise temporary protected status for Central Americans fleeing the war zone of the Northern Triangle.

    To wit: when pressed by NPR’s Julio Ricardo Varela on whether Mrs. Clinton agreed with Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders’ that Central Americans from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador should be granted Temporary Protected Status, she said, through a spokesperson, “NO.” Specifically, she believes it is critical that everyone has a full and fair hearing, and that our country provides refuge to those that need it And we should be guided by a spirit of humanity and generosity as we approach these issues.

    By clearly refusing to even consider TPS for Central Americans, Hillary Clinton’s position is unequivocal: she will deport children to death, rape, or serious harm in Central America.

    NYSIAF should not endorse a Mrs. Clinton given that she has promised to deport children to death or harm in Central America, especially when her opponent Mr. Sanders has promised to categorically prevent the deportation of children to death or harm through the enactment of Temporary Protected Status.

    Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns.”

    Updated 04-14-2016 at 06:54 AM by MKolken

  5. Libertarian Candidates for President Outline Immigration Positions

    by , 04-13-2016 at 09:34 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Gary Johnson, former Libertarian presidential candidate and Republican New Mexico Governor, John McAfee, developer of the first commercial anti-virus program, and Austin Petersen, founder of The Libertarian Republic participated in a two-hour debate on Fox Business with John Stossel. In the second part of the debate they are asked about their immigration positions.

    Here are their answers:

    Updated 04-13-2016 at 10:02 AM by MKolken

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: