The second Trump administration has brought the American public, daily kidnappings, and general brutality courtesy of ICE, Border Patrol (CBP), and many local police departments nationally. No one is immune from the lawlessness of the Trump terror regime-not even children. While there are stories about missing or ‘disappeared’ migrant children; there are other stories about children being forced to appear in court, (some still in diapers), to defend themselves against charges brought by the same Trump administration. This is one of those stories. One last thing; these babies are migrants who have been violently torn out of their mother’s arms-facing deportation alone.
To add further “insult to injury”; the federal immigration judges assigned to adjudicate these cases, (allegedly as impartial arbiters), work for the prosecution, namely the US Attorney General. The fraud that is the ‘federal immigration court’ system, born via an illegitimate power grab by a former republican Attorney General, has been dutifully ignored, (if not directly covered up), by the mainstream media. Discovering this fraud was accidental. Shamefully, this illegitimate system should have been exposed decades ago.
One of the most egregious examples of this judicial child abuse occurred in the court of Judge Ubaid ul-Haq. Though the judge spoke to the children with a friendly lilt in his voice while referencing subjects such as pizza to the kids; the mission of his court remained evil. This is based on reporting in The Gothamist by Arya Sundaram on April 22, 2025. (source)
While this occurred some 9 months ago; no reforms have been implemented to correct this situation.
Judge Ubaid ul-Haq…explaining deportation to a—4 year old
Judge Ubaid ul-Haq was the federal immigration ‘judge’ tasked with sentencing, (yes you heard that correctly); ‘sentencing’ a 4 year old child this past April. Ironically, that ‘inconvenient truth’ isn’t the only injustice in this story. Like all federal immigration judges; Judge Ubaid ul-Haq works for the U.S. Attorney General. This very detail presents as a massive conflict of interest as judges in any court are assigned to be allegedly impartial arbiters of the law. When a judge must report to the prosecution (in this case the top prosecutor aka the U.S. Attorney General); such impartiality is reduced to a cruel joke.
This interaction was merely another day in Judge Ubaid ul-Haq’s virtual courtroom. He was attempting to give an explanation of the deportation proceedings to an undocumented migrant. The migrant in question was 4 years old. Now this 4 year old wasn’t the only child facing an immigration judge with no attorney, no legal guardian, and no parents. There were many other babies facing other deportation judges alone, with no adults present other than a few shelter workers. (The shelter workers in this specific story merely logged the children on to their virtual court appearance). Why this wasn’t attacked as state sponsored child abuse remains a mystery, but the charade of justice continued.
Now, in all fairness, the judge presented a kindly demeanor as he went through the motions and prepared to sentence these babies to immigration hell. Of course, the fact that no child should ever be forced to present as a defendant was never addressed. Apparently, these children from communities of color (including the 4 year old toddler), were considered criminals-because they existed. Judge ul-Haq did attempt to allay the children’s fears before deporting them without parents or family-that is. He made small talk in a disingenuous attempt to establish rapport with these child defendants. This may not be due to any kindness lurking in his ambitious heart, as DOJ directives do demand that such proceedings be conducted using “child friendly courtroom procedures.” DOJ directive The DOJ document also advises immigration judges to provide …”lists of pro bono legal service providers.” DOJ directive It should also be noted that this DOJ directive was issued in 2023 during the Biden administration. The directive further provides for additional legal options such as the use of a child advocate, and any ‘Friends of the Court’ assistance. DOJ directive
It remains unclear how such pro bono lists and other legal resources can be utilized by toddlers whose parents have been violently abducted and, who themselves are unable to read or comprehend the situation. How is a young child-a toddler still going through ‘potty’ training-supposed to respond?
Federal Immigration Judges conflict of interest
The obvious cruelty of this court should be enough to warrant severe condemnation, but there’s more. Unlike any other federal judges; immigration judges essentially work for the prosecution, as they are hired-and fired-at the pleasure of the US Attorney General. Furthermore, they do not enjoy lifetime tenure as other federal judges. This situation once again, presents as a massive conflict of interest as judges in any court are assigned to be impartial arbiters of the law. When a judge must report to the prosecution (in this case the top prosecutor aka the U.S. Attorney General); such impartiality is reduced to a cruel joke.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association calls out this fraud
Immigration attorney Jeremy McKinney wrote a blistering post about the massively corrupt conflict of interest in our immigration courts for the website run by the American Immigration Lawyers Association. website run by the American Immigration Lawyers Association While most Americans assume that immigration judges are like any other judge, held to act as impartial arbiters of the facts and the law; they would be wrong. To quote McKinney:
“Right now, immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice (DOJ). That means the judges, clerks, and other staff work for the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Guess who the head of EOIR reports to? It’s the Attorney General. That’s right, the nation’s top prosecutor is the person who gives immigration judges their marching orders.” AILA post
Now as damning as this statement is-there’s more. McKinney calls out this corrupt system asking;
“Does it make sense for the prosecution to boss the judge?” AILA post
And rather than leaving the question in the ether, (like so many cowardly democratic centrists do); McKinney blasts further the obvious answer-“No, it does not. An independent immigration court system would allow justice to prevail over politics.” AILA post
So, to repeat McKinney’s inquiry-why does the judge take orders from the nation’s prosecutor?
McKinney and his colleagues testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee in 2020 regarding this mockery of justice. Courthouse News report Shamefully, the web page containing his testimony has been ‘disappeared’ by the Trump administration. House Judiciary event page
How Immigration ‘Judges’ became ‘employees’ of the prosecution
In 1983, the U.S. Attorney General, William French Smith ‘moved’ immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), into a new agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ), now known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This new agency, the (EIOR) now had full authority to …”administer the Nation’s immigration court system.” DOJ EOIR evolution page
EOIR created by DOJ without Congress
So who created the (EOIR)? Was it authorized by an act of Congress? Wouldn’t such a move require congressional approval? The short answer is-no. The EOIR was the creation of the DOJ without any congressional oversight or accountability. To quote directly from the DOJ’s EOIR website…
“The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) was created on January 9, 1983, through an internal Department of Justice (DOJ) reorganization which combined the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) with the Immigration Judge function previously performed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (now part of the Department of Homeland Security). Besides establishing the EOIR as a separate agency within DOJ, this reorganization made the Immigration Courts independent of INS, the agency charged with enforcement of Federal immigration laws.” DOJ EOIR about page
The statement goes on to explain how the …”EOIR is also separate from the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section in the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the Office of Immigration Litigation in the DOJ Civil Division.” DOJ EOIR about page
Now, notice how this is presented as a simple ‘reorganization’ with no accompanying statement explaining who the immigration judges report to as their superiors. Again, it’s merely an attempt to reorganize, presumably to what-increase efficiency? Unfortunately, there’s more to this illegitimate DOJ power grab. The last statement clearly presents the corrupt conflict of interest in this new agency. To quote, once again from the DOJ website:
“As an office within the Department of Justice, EOIR is headed by a Director who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney General.” DOJ EOIR about page
Furthermore, the document also states under a section labeled ‘responsibilities’ that the …”EOIR is responsible for adjudicating immigration cases. Specifically, under delegated authority from the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and administers federal immigration laws by conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and administrative hearings.” DOJ EOIR about page
The final sentence in this section is either the most galling or the most ironic as it claims that the …”EOIR is committed to providing fair, expeditious, and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.” DOJ EOIR about page
The EOIR has unilaterally established the US Attorney General as the authorizing office with power over every immigration judge. Again, if judges are tasked with being impartial arbiters of the law; this new agency delegitimizes any claim of impartiality. No judge can serve equal justice when their very livelihood is in the hands of-the prosecutor. This incestuous power vested in the Attorney General is further reinforced by the precarious tenure of immigration judges. Unlike Article III judges, immigration judges do not have life tenure, are not appointed by the president, and are not subject to senate confirmation. They are appointed by the Attorney General, who is essentially their boss.
Is this legitimate? No. Was this widely reported in the media? Again-no. This illegitimate theft of power tracing back to the first Reagan administration has continued unabated to the present day with no ethical objections from republicans or democrats. The sheer fact that the office of the Attorney General appropriated power not authorized by law or by Congress remains a serious breach of law. The question to be faced is this; can any federal judge report to the lead prosecutor of the USA, namely the Attorney General, as their immediate supervisor, and still claim to be an impartial arbiter? The answer, once again, is an obvious and unequivocal-NO. This is not only a formula for corruption, but it makes a mockery of justice. Federal immigration judges should be independent of the prosecution. Period.
This structure places the prosecutor, namely the Attorney General, as the judge, jury and deportation ‘executioner.’
In no other court would such a compromised unethical structure be permitted. Why do we tolerate the fraud that is our immigration court system as it systemically abuses migrants, while permitting corporate ‘persons’ to judicial privilege not seen since the era promoting the ‘divine right of kings’? What does the vast doctrine of legal scholarship have to say about the need for impartial judges?
UN Congress on Judiciary Independence
The Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime published a paper which discussed the issue of judicial independence. This paper is a product of the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
There are 7 principles and they are directly quoted:
“Independence of the judiciary”
1.)”The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.
2.) The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
3.) The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.
4.) There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.
5.) Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.
6.) The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.
7.) It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.”
From the reports of various immigration courts throughout the USA, these principles of judicial independence seem to be nonexistent. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated their responsibility regarding the illegitimate power of the EOIR and the US Attorney General. Given the wholesale corruption of this entire process, dating back to 1983; it’s no small wonder that 4 year-old babies are being criminally sentenced in court, simultaneously with their potty training.
COMMENTS