Let’s start by being honest.

Most immigrant clients don’t know what they don’t know.

So how can a lawyer know what they don’t know?

Yet, the majority of folks who call my office want quick, instant advice.

She must have woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Immigration judges often do.

Or so it seems.

What else can explain such contentious and rude attitudes at 8:00 a.m. in the morning?

After all, tempers should be held in check until a lawyer or an immigrant gives the judge a reason to come unglued.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security unveiled a pilot program using GPS ankle bracelets to track immigrant families caught illegally crossing the Mexican border.

Almost immediately, the announcement was criticized by immigration reform friends and foes alike.

I was warned.

About the darkness.

My client’s first master calendar was scheduled for early November. As I walked from my hotel room to the immigration court, it was not only cold, but also pitch black.

It seemed like 9:00 p.m.

It was only 9:00 a.m.

Later that morning, as I sat in the Anchorage immigration court waiting for our case to be called, I noticed about two-thirds of the matters involved Samoans.

In each case the judge inquired about the specific area of their birth. “Samoa or America Samoa?”

Each time the question was asked, the darkness – a legal darkness – seemed to engulf the room.

I was warned.

Recently, an immigrant asylum smuggler went public with inside secrets about his “profession”.

How much of this news story is true? That’s a million dollar question.

Small changes, my mother taught me, can sometimes make the biggest differences.

As a Riverside immigration attorney, that’s how I view a procedural change being proposed for immigrant bond and custody hearings.

A few weeks ago, I endorsed the position that blindly voting for any political party is not in the best interests of immigrants seeking compassionate immigration reform.

I suggested a hybrid posture between not voting at all and voting as a political dunce.

When President Obama was elected to his first term, immigrant communities felt reform was just around the corner. Instead, his administration has deported nearly 200,000 individuals per year.

Many of these deportees have deep family roots and community ties. Over 85% lack any serious or violent criminal convictions. The combination of these factors has led to widespread dissent about our nation’s detention and deportation policies.

The more immigration law enforcement agencies have pushed to remove immigrants from their families, the more they have created a new wave of immigration reform activists – citizen activists who refuse to sit idly while the rights of their friends and neighbors are trampled upon by agents claiming to be acting under authority of law.

It was this type of government abuse which prompted Deborah Sherman de Santos to start questioning immigration officials. That was several years ago. She is still seeking answers today.

When is a victory not a victory?

When the issues pertain to immigration law.

For instance, in Matter of A-R-C-G, the Board of Immigration Appeals recently held that abused immigrant women qualify for asylum in the U.S. under certain circumstances.

Media pundits and legal analysts applauded the decision as a landmark ruling.

They’re right.

However, the woman seeking protection has not yet won her case.

And many abused spouses were left out of the court’s sphere of protection.