Attorneys scramble to help migrants detained outside Denver immigration court
"It was a family of three with a small child clutching to his father's neck," said Emily Brock, Deputy Managing Attorney with Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network's Children's program.
CBS
Brock arrived at immigration court as the family of three was being taken into ICE custody, but she said they could not do anything to stop the process. Instead, her organization scrambled to get immigration attorneys to show up and help prevent others from being detained.
"This is a new trend that is happening nationwide, and now we've seen it in Denver," said Brock.
Brock said arresting people at courthouses is a new ICE tactic to detain and expedite the removal process for more migrants, amid the Trump Administration's latest quota to arrest over 3,000 migrants a day.
"Generally, the advice is if you are set for a hearing in immigration court, you need to appear for that hearing because otherwise, if you don't show up, you can be ordered removed for not showing up," said Brock. "So, just by clearly not showing up, you can get a removal order, and that makes you at a greater risk for enforcement action."
CBS
Typically, when a migrant appears before the court in a removal hearing, they may get the chance to have their case dismissed by a judge. This is generally a positive thing. However, having a case dismissed may now be used against the individual.
"This is where I think the surprise comes in and why we scrambled. Now, a dismissal means that they can be arrested as they leave the court and be placed in these expedited removal proceedings," said Brock.
"Some people don't understand, they haven't been able to talk to an attorney about what this means," said Immigration Attorney Cristina Uribe Reyes.
It is why immigration lawyers like Reyes stepped up to help educate families who went into court.
Some advocates even handed out fliers, urging families entering into court to know their rights beforehand.
"A lot of these cases are at the last stage where they're just waiting for their final hearing to present the case," said Reyes. "Now, we're having to start all over again from step zero when they get detained."
A spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security issued this statement in response to these increased detainment measures by ICE:
"Secretary Noem is reversing Biden's catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets. This Administration is once again implementing the rule of law.
Most aliens who illegally entered the United States within the past two years are subject to expedited removals. Biden ignored this legal fact and chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, into the country with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been.
If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation."
An ICE spokesperson also issued their own statement:
"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is executing its mission of identifying and removing criminal aliens and others who have violated our nation's immigration laws. All aliens in violation of U.S. immigration law may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States, regardless of nationality.
For operational security and for the safety of our law enforcement personnel, ICE does not confirm, deny, or otherwise discuss ongoing or future operations. The agency publicly announces operational results when appropriate."
While it is unclear if ICE agents will come back and detain more families exiting court in the days to come, Brock said the challenge is having enough manpower to be available to help families after losing federal funding to support some of their programs.
"When the contracts for the legal orientation programs were canceled, we had to cut back on staff, we had to reallocate staff members to other programs, and so we aren't necessarily able to be here 24/7 or have the presence that we used to be able to have," she said.
She said families can and should ask for more time in their cases if the judge moves to dismiss, or oppose dismissal, and have the chance for their cases to be heard without the fear of being taken into custody.
The biggest message to families, however, is that they still should show up to their scheduled court hearing.
"This is an attack on due process, and all it's going to do is ferment fear in the community," said Brock.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jay Leno rips partisanship in late night shows
Comedian Jay Leno bemoaned increased partisanship and political humor on late night shows, saying comics who opt for political jokes are making a mistake. 'I love political humor, don't get me wrong,' the former host of 'The Tonight Show' said during a recent interview. 'But it's just what happens when people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other.' The former TV host's comments were first highlighted by Mediaite. Leno's comments come just days after CBS announced it was canceling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' a move that the network said was financially necessary but some critics have pointed to as evidence of sensitivity by the network's parent company to President Trump. Trump celebrated Colbert's cancellation and suggested in a social media post last week, ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel could be ousted soon. Leno, who left the world of late night in 2014, suggested leading comics are under increased pressure to give their opinion on political matters and as a result are only connection with 'half your audience.' 'I'd like to think that people come to a comedy show to get away from the pressures of life,' he said. 'Why shoot for just half an audience all the time? … I mean, I like to bring people into the big picture. I don't know why you would want to alienate one specific group.'
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mark Kelly on possible White House bid: ‘I'm not going to give you a yes or no answer'
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) declined to say whether he plans to run for president in 2028, stressing instead that he's focused on addressing voters' concerns about the Democratic Party. In an interview on CNN's 'State of the Union,' anchor Jake Tapper noted the swing-state senator was video-conferencing in from Pennsylvania and recently did a town hall in Michigan, adding, 'Both of them are key battleground states.' 'Yes or no, are you considering running for president in 2028?' Tapper asked. 'That is a good question,' Kelly responded. 'I know you want a yes or no answer,' he continued. 'And I'm not going to give you a yes or no one because I'm just trying to do this job, get the word out to the American people.' Kelly, who was in the running to be former Vice President Kamala Harris's 2024 running mate, pointed to Democrats' poor polling and said he's working to get those numbers up. 'I'm trying to improve, you know, the polling that you talked about, and just listen to voters wherever they are about, you know, what are the problems they're dealing with and how do we fix them,' he added. Multiple Democrats are already surveying the landscape to position themselves for possible runs in 2028.
Epoch Times
12 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
How USCIS Would Implement Trump's Order Restricting Birthright Citizenship
The plan outlines new criteria for denying citizenship to some U.S.-born children and proposes alternative status options. A pregnant illegal immigrant from El Salvador stands next to a Border Patrol truck near Rio Grande City, Texas, on Dec. 7, 2015. A pregnant illegal immigrant from El Salvador stands next to a Border Patrol truck near Rio Grande City, Texas, on Dec. 7, 2015.U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has drafted an implementation plan for the enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, in the event that a court block on the order is lifted. The USCIS plan, released on July 25, establishes new criteria that would deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the United States, and outlines procedures for granting them alternative legal status tied to a parent's immigration status. Under the plan, children born in the United States to mothers who are either unlawfully present in the country, or in a lawful, but temporary status—such as on tourist, student, or work visas—would no longer be considered citizens at birth if the father is also not a U.S. citizen or green card holder. Story continues below advertisement USCIS defines 'lawful but temporary' presence to include most nonimmigrant visa holders, parolees, Temporary Protected Status recipients, and those admitted under the Visa Waiver Program, among others. By contrast, lawful permanent residents, refugees, and asylees are considered to have lawful and non‑temporary status, so their U.S.-born children would be granted American citizenship at birth. The plan also spells out procedures for children who would be denied automatic citizenship under the policy, but one or both of whose parents have lawful but temporary status. In such cases, the agency proposes broadening existing rules that apply to the children of foreign diplomats, who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Specifically, such children would be allowed to register for any lawful status that matches at least one of the parents, rather than being left without legal recognition. In order to provide time to fill any regulatory gaps before such regulations are finalized, USCIS recommends deferring immigration enforcement actions against such children. Story continues below advertisement The USCIS plan acknowledges a preliminary court injunction that temporarily blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order from being enforced, but notes that the injunction does not prevent executive agencies from drawing up implementation plans for the presidential directive. Recently, a federal judge in Massachusetts upheld his nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship directive, finding that a narrower injunction would not be practical. That decision after a lawsuit was brought by a coalition of two cities and 22 state attorneys general, who argued that Trump's order is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental status, and that Congress codified this principle in the Immigration and Nationality Act. They claim that the president lacks the power to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment, and that he is not authorized by any law to limit who can obtain U.S. citizenship at birth. Story continues below advertisement If Trump's order is allowed to stand, children born to parents who are in the United States illegally will 'all become deportable, and many will be stateless,' the plaintiffs contend, arguing that this would cause them to suffer 'immediate and irreparable harm.' Further, the states would have to modify their benefit programs to account for the changes, leading them to incur significant costs. The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, said in a July 25 opinion upholding his earlier block of Trump's order that the states would face administrative and financial burdens if the directive were allowed to stand. Sorokin also stated that Trump's policy was unconstitutional and in violation of federal law, but noted that the U.S. Supreme Court will 'no doubt' have to step in at some point and settle the matter.
