In the United States, numerous immigrant judges have been reportedly dismissed, sparking widespread indignation. The abrupt removals are stoking tensions within the already contentious arena of immigration policy and practice, with human rights activists voicing strong criticism. The victims of the dismissals include judges adjudicating asylum cases and others handling a myriad of immigration-related issues.

In Japan, the dismissal of immigration judges resonates powerfully, as the country grapples with its own immigration policy amidst a declining and aging population. The news particularly strikes a chord with human rights activists and those advocating for a more compassionate approach to immigration. Knowledge and interpretation of international law and tenets of fundamental justice are crucial subjects of consideration in Japan when evaluating such cases.

In comparison to the U.S., the EU takes a more unified approach in handling similar issues through bodies like the European Court of Human Rights. The EU maintains strict standards for the dismissal of judges and any arbitrary dismissal would likely lead to intense scrutiny. On the contrary, the divisiveness and controversy in the U.S surrounding immigration policy and judicial impartiality often heighten the tensions surrounding such dismissals.