I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections

I've served on a jury in one criminal case, and watched the beginning of another case without being on the jury. One thing that stood out was how few objections ever included a reason, and the ones that did were usually described in one word: attorney: "objection," judge: "sustained"/attorney: "objection, speculation," judge: "overruled." It felt mechanical. Based on how quickly the judges ruled, it was obvious they knew what the objection would be before the attorneys opened their mouths. I would be OK if the judge were to accept responsibility of allowing only acceptable questions, especially since the judge decides what's acceptable. Please note, I have no idea if a judge can accept that responsibility in an immigration hearing; but if they could, I would be fine with it. The obvious danger, in a criminal hearing, would be for the accused to say something that they weren't required to say, and that hurt their case. That is one obvious reason people have a right to an attorney. I don't know enough about immigration law to say whether that's a possibility. In a criminal case, you have a right to remain silent. You don't have that right in a civil case (you can punished for contempt, and the judge is allowed to assume the reason you want to remain silent is that the truth would hurt your case ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Refusal_to_testify_in_a_civil_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_Unite... )). I have no idea if you have the right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, but it wouldn't surprise me if the right is severely limited. If you have a right to remain silent in an immigration hearing, then it would be impossible to guarantee a fair hearing without providing an attorney.