The court found prejudicial error in the admission of the defendant’s statements in an illegal immigration case. He was found in this country after being deported and was told that he had the right to counsel, but not at the government’s expense, and that any statement he made could be used against him for purposes of administrative removal. Although defendant received complete and correct Miranda warnings shortly thereafter (including an advisement that any statements could be used against him in court or any immigration proceeding, and that a lawyer would be appointed if he could not afford one), this did not correct the problem, since when taken together, the “substance, content, and clarity” of the warnings did not convey to defendant his rights under Miranda.