You have the right to an attorney — but not at government expense
Laura Giselle Romero is a Columbia University graduate passionate about immigrant rights and universal representation. Laura has experience working with children, youth, and survivors of violence navigating removal proceedings in New York City and Los Angeles. Throughout her time at Columbia and beyond, Laura has participated in immigration court-watching projects that have further solidified her advocacy for access to representation at all stages.
Contact the author: lauragiselle15@gmail.com
Keywords
Children; representation; due process
Article Summary
Immigration court is not “real” court – with few of the due process protections guaranteed in criminal proceedings. But the cruelty the court inflicts is very real.
How to cite:
Romero, Laura Giselle. 2026. “You Have the Right to an Attorney — but Not at Government Expense.” Semi-Structured (Washington, D.C.), On Ethnographic Witnessing: Student Encounters with Immigration Court, vol. 1 (3). https://doi.org/10.57912/34027656.
Immigration courts are not real courts. You have a “judge” in a black robe whose elevated seat demonstrates the power dynamic between the court/government and noncitizens/observers. Them vs. us.
Immigration courts are not real courts. Legal representation is vital. The system, however, frames representation as optional, and creates the impression that people can successfully partake in these proceedings alone. I have observed hundreds of immigration hearings since 2022, both in person and virtually, and I always reach the same conclusion: this framing is a lie.
Immigration courts are not real courts. At almost every initial Master Calendar hearing that I have observed, I have seen the courts provide individuals with a list of free or low-cost legal service providers and local serving organizations. A Master Calendar hearing is typically the first hearing in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Individuals usually receive a Notice to Appear from the Department of Homeland Security, ordering them to appear before the court for their hearing at a specified date, time, and location. As I have heard them acknowledge numerous times in court, immigration judges are aware of the lack of capacity within these organizations, and yet, they continue to punish those who have no other option but to use them, forcing individuals to proceed through the legal process without legal representation.
Immigration courts are not real courts. If anything, requesting more time to find legal representation ends up feeling as if you’re the one burdening the government and the courtroom. It does not make a difference if the individual is a child who was not able to find legal representation—the government will continue to actively seek a child’s deportation because, in the eyes of the existing framework, legal representation in these proceedings is not necessary. It’s appalling how the government believes its prosecutors are on the same playing field as a child.
Immigration courts are not real courts. Our immigration court system operates in ways that force children to interact with a system that is not age-appropriate or trauma-informed. Individuals are placed in adversarial proceedings before an Immigration Judge and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prosecutor, where, many times, even the judge will act like a prosecutor. Attorneys are not government-appointed. You can have one, but not at the expense of the government – not even children.
Immigration courts are not real courts. It’s an image that constantly stays with me: the youngest person I have observed without legal representation, a three-year-old child. The child was with his mom, but his mom was not the one in removal proceedings. The child was the name on the docket. The child could not sit still; he was loud; he would try to get down from the chair; he was crying; his stomach hurt. I need you to imagine how a child acts, and then picture that same child inside a courtroom, and then you hear the government’s prosecutor designating the country of removal for this child. My conscience screams that this is wrong, but the reality is that the government does not care that this is a three-year-old. There is a procedure being followed, and the procedure does not stop when someone is crying, when someone is a child, or when someone does not understand the law. Children must attend these hearings, with or without legal representation, or they risk being given an in absentia removal order.
Immigration courts are not real courts. I remember reading an article in April 2025, during my last semester in college, titled “4-year-old migrant girl, other kids go to court in NYC with no lawyer: 'The cruelty is apparent'” by Arya Sundaram. Sundaram observed numerous children in NYC shelters appearing for their virtual immigration court hearings without any legal representation after the current administration terminated a federal contract that assisted in providing legal services to unaccompanied children. Even without a trusted attorney by their side, these children had to appear for their hearings and listen as an immigration judge spoke to them about the proceedings, explaining how it was his role to decide if the children should “leave” or “stay” in the United States. I recommend reading the article in full, as it highlights the abhorrent nature of prosecuting children without representation.
Immigration courts are not real courts. You have a court that permits anonymity for the government, but not for noncitizens. A noncitizen’s address, place of work, A#, children’s names: their personal information needs to be known by the government, yet the people who wake up every day seeking nothing but another deportation to meet their quotas don’t even need to be in the same room. The government sees the noncitizen as simply another A-number who should not be here, rather than seeing a human being worthy of dignity and due process.
Immigration courts are not real courts. The ICE prosecutor can appear remotely, but if you’re unrepresented, you need to appear in person because, somehow, without a legal advocate by your side, you’re considered as some sort of flight risk. It’s as if the court cannot trust you without a legal representative, and yet there are structural barriers to legal representation in the first place. The government needs to see you, but the government can seek your deportation with their cameras off. Individuals are ordered removed without sometimes seeing the face of the prosecutor advocating for their removal. You receive a 10–20-minute rights advisal from the judge, and then you’re expected to understand all of the complexities of U.S. immigration laws. This is not due process, and insisting that this court is “real,” only magnifies the violence of these “courts.”
Immigration courts are not real courts. I cannot express enough the dire need for legal representation within a court system that is not neutral or independent. Legal representatives serve as an extension of a checks and balances system that is clearly lacking within immigration courts. Legal representatives ensure that the government is accurately interpreting the law and not violating people’s rights. However, this becomes almost impossible when we operate within a system that deems itself a civil procedure, not needing to guarantee representation, yet treats the noncitizens subjected to it as criminals.
Immigration courts are not real courts. But this isn’t new; this is how the courts have always acted, no matter what party has been in power. Immigration courts are “courts” operating under political influence, and we must never let them claim otherwise.
[INSERT INFO ON FULL ISSUE HERE]