Order Code RL31388
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Restructuring Proposals in the 107th Congress
Updated December 30, 2002
Lisa M. Seghetti
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Restructuring Proposals in the 107th Congress
Summary
The events of September 11, 2001 brought the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the forefront of the nation’s attention. Although all
19 hijackers entered the country legally, three overstayed their visas. And, on March
11, 2002, the then-INS sent student visa notifications for two of the (now deceased)
19 hijackers to the aviation school they attended, provoking an intensification of
long-standing criticism of the former INS for weak management controls, among
other things. An underlying theme of criticism concerned what many believed were
overlapping and unclear chains of command with respect to the former INS’s service
and enforcement functions. There appeared to be a consensus among the
Administration, Congress, and commentators that the immigration system, primarily
INS, was in need of restructuring. There also appeared to be a consensus among
interested parties that the former INS’s two main functions — service and
enforcement — needed to be separated.
Proposals in the 107th Congress to restructure the former INS centered on
separating the service and enforcement functions either by keeping INS intact and
creating two separate bureaus to carry out the functions, or by dismantling INS and
reassigning the functions to DOJ and other agencies or a newly created department
of homeland security. While separating the two main functions would create a clear
chain of command and increase accountability, several questions are raised. Are
these functions operationally separable or interdependent? Will both functions
receive equal attention and resources? How will separating the main functions
address the fragmentation of immigrant-related functions across INS and other
federal agencies? How will the separate entities expeditiously share information?
There has also been some discussion of merging the agencies responsible for
border patrol and inspections under one agency. Homeland Security Director Tom
Ridge had proposed merging at least three agencies that are responsible for providing
border security into a “super agency.” Several pieces of legislation were introduced
that would have consolidated several agencies that have border security-related
functions into a newly created agency. All of these proposals would have addressed
concerns of overlap in functions, and related duplication of efforts; lack of
communication and coordination of efforts; and the rivalry that reportedly exists
between INS and agencies with similar responsibilities. The proposals, however, did
not address concerns about the need for greater information sharing between the
immigrant service and immigration enforcement functions.
The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) was signed into law on
November 25, 2002. The Act transfers INS’ immigration service and enforcement
functions to a new DHS into two separate Bureaus. The visa issuance function
remains at DOS’ Consular Affairs, however, the Secretary of DHS will have
authority over visa issuance regulations. Other immigration functions are either
transferred to the Department of Health and Human Service or remain in DOJ.
Contents
Latest Legislative Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
DOJ Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
DOS Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DOL Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
U.S. Customs Service Immigration Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Federal Agencies’ Immigrant-Related Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Past INS Reorganizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
INS Restructuring Proposals in the 105th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
INS Restructuring Proposals in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Administration’s Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
June 6, 2002 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
November 14, 2001 INS Restructuring Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Restructuring Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability
Act of 2002 (H.R. 3231) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Immigration Reform, Accountability, Security, and Enforcement
Act of 2002 (S. 2444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Immigration Restructuring and Accountability Act of 2001
(H.R. 1562) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization
Act of 2002 (H.R. 4108) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Analysis of Selected Options to Restructure INS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Option I: Keep INS Intact, While Separating the Service
and Enforcement Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Option II: Dismantle INS and Create Two Separate Bureaus
Within DOJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Option III: Dismantle INS and Disperse Its Functions
to Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Border Consolidation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Department of National Border Security Act of 2002 (S. 2020) . . . . . 19
National Border Security Agency Act (H.R. 3600) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Analysis of Border Consolidation Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chronology of Selected INS Reorganization Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chronology of Implemented INS Reorganizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Immigration Functions by Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Restructuring Proposals
in the 107th Congress
Latest Legislative Developments
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) was signed into law on
November 25, 2002. The Act transfers INS’ immigration service and enforcement
functions to a new DHS into two separate Bureaus. The visa issuance function
remains at DOS’ Consular Affairs, however, the Secretary of DHS will have
authority over visa issuance regulations. Other immigration functions are either
transferred to the Department of Health and Human Service or remain in DOJ. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 was prompted by the June 6, 2002, proposal made
by President Bush to create a new homeland security department that would have
included INS under its border and transportation security division. Preceding the
legislation and the President’s proposal, efforts were already underway to
restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Introduction
The events of September 11, 2001 brought the then-Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the forefront of the nation’s attention. Although all
19 hijackers entered the country legally, three overstayed their visas. And, on March
11, 2002, the former INS sent student visa notifications for two of the (now
deceased) 19 hijackers to the aviation school they attended, provoking an
intensification of long-standing criticism of the then-INS for not fully enforcing the
immigration law, having a backlog of immigrant visa and naturalization applications,
having poor management practices, lacking accountability, and providing poor
customer service, among other things. Under its organizational structure, INS
struggled with carrying out its many tasks. The underlying theme of most of the
criticism hinged on what many believed were overlapping and unclear chains of
command with respect to INS’s service and enforcement functions.1 There appeared
to be a consensus among the Administration, Congress, and commentators that the
immigration system, primarily INS, was in need of restructuring. There also
appeared to be a consensus among interested parties that the former INS’s two main
functions — service and enforcement — needed to be separated.
1 The former INS’s service functions included the processing of immigrant visa and
naturalization applications. Its enforcement functions included enforcing U.S. immigration
laws along the borders and within the interior.
CRS-2
This report examines immigration functions within the former INS and across
other federal agencies. The report also provides background information on past and
current proposals to reorganize INS as well as proposals to consolidate border
security functions, and it analyzes these proposals. The appendices detail the history
of the immigration agency, proposals to reorganize the agency, and actual
reorganizations.
INS had been internally restructured many times since its inception in 1891.2
In addition to internally initiated measures, numerous proposals had been advanced
by administrations, Congress, and commissions to reorganize INS since the early
1900s.3 These proposals generally gave expression to concerns about the efficiency
and effectiveness of the former INS in performing its responsibilities; perceived
inefficiencies resulting from overlap and fragmentation of functions performed by
various agencies; and border-related activities related to drug trafficking. Previous
proposals sought to accomplish one or more of the following:4
! Transfer the responsibility for issuing visas from the Department of
State (DOS) to INS;
! Combine the INS immigration inspection and border patrol functions
with Customs Service inspection in a single agency, either within the
Customs Service (in the Department of Treasury) or in a newly
created agency;
! Combine all immigration functions in a single, independent agency.
Several proposals to restructure INS had been advanced and included: (1)
separating the service and enforcement functions, but keeping INS intact; (2)
dismantling INS and creating two new agencies within the Department of Justice
(DOJ) that would report to a newly created position of an Associate Attorney General
for immigration affairs; (3) dismantling INS and creating a new immigration agency
within DOJ; and (4) creating an enforcement bureau within DOJ to carry out INS’s
enforcement functions, but transferring the issuance of visa functions to DOS, and
the immigrant labor-related functions to the Department of Labor (DOL). More
recently, Congress passed legislation that creates a Department of Homeland
Security. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) abolishes INS and
transfers its immigration service and enforcement functions to a new Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), see below.
There has also been some discussion of merging the border patrol and
inspections functions of the former INS and other primary agencies responsible for
these functions under one agency.5 Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge had
2 Immigration functions were first centralized under the Bureau of Immigration in the
Department of Treasury.
3 See
Appendix A for a chronology of proposals to reorganize INS.
4 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
History of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Committee Print, 96th Cong., 2d sess.
5 The primary agencies that have border security-related responsibilities are INS, U.S.
(continued...)
CRS-3
proposed merging the then-INS’s border patrol and inspection functions, U.S.
Customs Service inspection functions, and the Coast Guard under one “super
agency.” Another proposal by Ridge included merging only INS and the U.S.
Customs Service under one agency.6 Legislation had been introduced that would
have merged the then-INS’s border patrol and inspection functions, U.S. Customs
Service inspection functions, and the Coast Guard under one independent agency.7
Background
The Attorney General is responsible for administering and enforcing the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA; 8 U.S.C. 1101 et. Seq.),
and all other laws pertaining to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.8 INS
was the main agency responsible for administering and enforcing immigration laws.9
INS’s responsibilities were split into two generally broad functions: (1) the
processing of services and adjudication of benefits provided by immigration law, and
(2) the enforcement of restrictions and limitations in immigration law.
INS’s dual mission of providing immigration benefits (what is commonly
referred to as its service mission) and enforcing immigration law was at the center
of reorganization discussions. Some commentators contended that INS’s dual
mission was inherently conflicting in that the two roles had created two different
cultures that often competed for the same resources. Additionally, commentators
contended that increasing demands placed on INS (i.e., congressional mandates and
administrative directives) had created mission overload, which made it very difficult
for INS to effectively carry out its functions.
While INS was responsible for several database systems designed to carry out
its service and enforcement functions, several studies conducted by the Government
Accounting Office (GAO) criticized INS for having antiquated databases and failing
to integrate its systems.10 The reports were critical of the then-INS’s field and
5 (...continued)
Treasury’s Custom’s Service, and the Department of Transportation’s Coast Guard. INS has
border patrol responsibilities along the U.S. border. INS and the Customs Service both have
inspections responsibilities; INS inspects people as they present themselves for entry into
the country and the Customs Service inspects goods. The Coast Guard protects the
country’s coast lines and ports. It also enforces U.S. laws in the water and high seas,
including interdicting illegal immigrants.
6 McLaughlin, Abraham. Bush Plans Super-Agency to Improve US-Border Control.
The
Christian Science Monitor, March 25, 2002. p. 2.
7 See, for example, H.R. 1158, S. 1534, and H.R. 3600.
8 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 did not amend the INA to transfer certain
responsibilities from the Attorney General to the Secretary of DHS or his designee.
9 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 abolishes INS and transfers most of its functions to
the new DHS.
10 See for example a series of GAO reports on INS management issues: U.S. General
(continued...)
CRS-4
regional offices due to an absence of communication between the various offices.
The reports were also critical of INS’s continued use of paper for tracking most of
its data functions. Other reviews conducted by DOJ’s Office of Inspector General
(OIG) had questioned the reliability of INS’s information systems and the accuracy
of the information.11 According to DOJ’s Inspector General, Glenn A. Fine, “two
OIG audits of the INS’s automation initiatives found lengthy delays in completing
many automation programs, unnecessary cost increases, and a significant risk that
finished projects would fail to meet the agency’s needs.”12
Other issues surrounding the debate included reported lack of coordination and
cooperation among the various divisions within the then-INS, and an emphasis
placed on enforcement functions rather than service functions. With regard to
separating the service and enforcement functions, proponents contended that under
the then-organizational structure, the two functions were blurred with no clear chain
of command. Historically, INS enforcement functions had received more resources
than INS service functions.13 INS’s officials, as well as some members of Congress
and some commentators, believed that if the two functions were separated, each
function would receive equal attention and resources.
Immigration Functions
Although several federal agencies have important immigration responsibilities,14
the most recent proposals to restructure the immigration system focused on the
former INS and not on immigration-related responsibilities of other agencies (with
the exception of some bills that address border security functions, discussed below).
Some past proposals have considered a complete overhaul of the immigration system;
for example, in 1990, the Asencio Commission called for a new Agency for
Migration that would be responsible for all refugee and migration issues.15
10 (...continued)
Accounting Office.
INS: Overview of Recurring Management Challenges, GAO report 02-
168T;
October 17, 2001: Overview of Management and Program Challenges, GAO Report
T-GGD-99-148, July 29, 1999;
INS: Management Problems and Program Issues, GAO
Report T-GGD-95-11, October 5, 1994; and
Information Management: INS Lacks Ready
Access to Essential Data, GAO Report IMTEC-90-75, September 27, 1990.
11 U.S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
INS Enforcement and
Service Performance Issues. 107th Cong., 1st Sess., October 17, 2001 Washington, Govt.
Print. Off., 2001.
12
Ibid.
13 See CRS Report RS20908,
Immigration and Naturalization Service’s FY2002 Budget,
by
William J. Krouse.
14 These agencies include DOJ, DOS, Department of Treasury, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and Department of
Education.
15 The Asencio Commission.
Report of the Commission for the Study of International
Migration and Cooperative Economic Development. Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1990.
(continued...)
CRS-5
Subsequent commissions and reports echoed similar calls for consolidating border
patrol and inspection functions, as well as consolidating the visa functions of the
former INS and DOS.16
In its 1997 final report to Congress, the U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform (headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan)17 noted that
“fragmentation of responsibility leads to conflicting messages from the various
agencies [and] unnecessary delays in adjudication ....” Moreover, when more than
one agency is involved in similar functions, redundancies in actual implementation
and inconsistent results could occur. Additionally, such duplication could lead to
waste of resources (i.e., personnel, funds, equipment, etc.).
Some agencies perform broad immigrant-related functions, but they have
distinct responsibilities. For example:
! DOL, INS, and DOS make determinations on skill-based immigrant
and limited duration admissions applications.
! INS and DOL provide some form of worksite enforcement and
conduct investigations pertaining to employer compliance with
immigration-related labor standards and violations of the
employment eligibility verification requirement.
! INS and DOS adjudicate immigrant visas and conduct background
checks on visa applicants.
! INS and U.S. Customs both perform inspections at ports of entries.
The following table is a description of selected agencies’ immigration functions.
15 (...continued)
The Asencio Commission was established as a result of a congressional mandate, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
16 The 1937 Byrd Committee Report, the 1940 Bureau of the Budget Report, the 1948
Customs’ Management Improvement Study, the 1949 Commission on the Organization of
the Executive Branch of the Government (the Hoover Commission), the 1950 Senate
Committee on the Judiciary Report No. 1515, and the 1957 Commission on Government
Security (the Wright Commission). U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
History of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Committee print, 96th Cong., 2d
Sess. Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1980. p.81; U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.
1997 Report to Congress, Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy.
Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1997.
17 The Commission was established as a result of a mandate by the Immigration Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-649). It was charged with examining the implementation and impact of U.S.
immigration policy.
CRS-6
Table 1. Selected Immigration Functions by Departments
Agency/immigration
INS
U.S.
function
DOJ
DOS
Treasury
DOL
DHHSa
Issuance of Non-
X
X
—
—
—
immigrant Visas
Naturalization
X
—
—
—
—
Adjudication
Legal Permanent
X
X
—
—
—
Residents
Adjudications
Asylum Processing
X
—
—
—
—
Refugee Admissions
—
X
—
—
X
and Resettlement
Other adjudications
X
X
—
—
—
Immigration
X
—
X
—
—
Inspections
Border Patrol
X
—
—
—
—
Investigation
X
—
—
—
—
Apprehension/Removal
X
—
—
—
—
Detention
X
—
—
—
—
Employment
X
—
—
X
—
Verification
Medical Inspections
—
—
—
—
X
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
a Department of Health and Human Services.
DOJ Immigration Functions18
Section 103 of the INA gives primary responsibility for the administration and
enforcement of immigration law to the Attorney General.19 There are several
agencies and offices within DOJ that have responsibility for some immigration
functions: the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the Civil
18 Some of the information in this section was obtained from CRS Report RL30257,
Proposals to Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service, by William J. Krouse.
19 As stated previously, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transfers the former INS’ service
and enforcement functions to DHS. The Act, however, did not amend the INA to transfer
certain responsibilities from the Attorney General to the Secretary of DHS or his designee.
CRS-7
Division of DOJ. The former INS was in DOJ, however, the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 transferred most of its functions to DHS, see below.
INS was responsible for administering immigrant services, such as the
adjudication of naturalization petitions, review of asylum claims, and the issuing of
immigrant visas for aliens who seek to adjust their immigrant status. It also was
responsible for patrolling the borders, inspecting all persons arriving at U.S. ports of
entry, and investigating violations of immigration law. INS also performed worksite
enforcement along with DOL.
EOIR is an independent agency within DOJ that was initially established by
regulation in 1983. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, however, formally
authorized EOIR. EOIR has jurisdiction over the immigration court system, the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer (OCAHO). Immigration judges preside over removal hearings and
their decisions are appealable before the BIA. BIA is the highest administrative body
for interpreting and applying immigration laws. OCAHO was created to hear
administrative cases related to employment discrimination, document fraud, and
employer sanctions.
In addition to EOIR, DOJ has other components that have some immigration
functions, such as the Office of Litigation, and the Office of Special Counsel for
Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Both of these offices are located
within the Civil Division of DOJ.
DOS Immigration Functions20
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the DHS Secretary exclusive
authority to issue regulations with respect to visa issuance, while maintaining the
responsibility for implementation of visa issuance in DOS. DOS has several bureaus
and offices that have immigration-related functions: the Bureau of Consular Affairs,
the Bureau of Democracy, Refugee and Migration Affairs, and the Office of the Legal
Adviser.
The
Bureau of Consular Affairs is responsible for the adjudication of visas
overseas for foreign nationals wishing to come temporarily to the United States. It
also manages the issuance of passports to citizens. The
Bureau of Population,
Refugee and Migration has responsibility for migration issues and oversees refugee
admissions. The
Office of Legal Adviser serves as the counsel for the State
Department on migration issues.
DOL Immigration Functions
Several agencies within DOL have responsibility for some immigration
functions. The
Employment and Training Administration processes the applications
that are filed by employers seeking to hire foreign workers. It also has responsibility
20 See CRS Report RL31512,
Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
CRS-8
for making sure U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the hiring of foreign
workers. The function is carried out in its
Division of Foreign Labor Certification.
The Employment Standards Administration is responsible for enforcing
immigration-related labor issues. Within the Employment Standards Administration
is the
Wage and Hour Division, which has responsibility for investigating possible
violations of regulations, contract requirements or attestations under the H-2A, H-1C,
H-1B, D-visa and F-visa programs.21 It is also responsible for reviewing employment
eligibility verification requirements under INA.
Three bureaus and offices,
International Labor Affairs Bureau, the
Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Policy, and the
Office of the Solicitor, direct DOL’s
immigration policy and research, and provide legal support for all of DOL’s
immigration programs and functions.
U.S. Customs Service Immigration Functions
The U.S. Customs Service is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Treasury
Department. The Customs Service’s primary function is inspecting and clearing
goods entering the United States. Customs Service and INS inspectors are cross-
designated to enforce both agencies’ areas of law. (Custom’s officers are cross-
designated to inspect persons seeking entry into the country, and INS inspectors are
cross-designated to inspect goods during primary inspection.) When a question of
an alien’s admissibility arises, the Customs inspector refers the alien to INS for
secondary inspection and a final determination of admissibility.22
Other Federal Agencies’ Immigrant-Related Functions
The
Public Health Service of the
Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) determines health-related grounds for inadmissibility and provides health
inspections for certain aliens who present themselves at a port of entry. Also, the
Office of Refugee Resettlement within DHHS provides assistance to refugees.
Other federal agencies that perform immigration-related functions include the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Education. The Department of
Agriculture performs inspections on food (i.e., fruit), and the Department of
Education administers educational assistance programs for immigrant children.
21 The following non-immigrant visas are categorized as follows: H-2A, agriculture guest
workers; H-1C, nurses; H1B, professional speciality workers; D-visa, vessel or aircraft
crewman; and F-visa, student visa for an educational institution.
22 For information on the U.S. Customs Service see: CRS Report RL31230,
U.S. Customs
Service Authorization, FY2002 Budget, and Related Border Management Issues, by William
J. Krouse.
CRS-9
Past INS Reorganizations23
In 1891 immigration functions were centralized under the Bureau of
Immigration in the Department of Treasury. In 1913, Congress mandated that the
then Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization be divided into two Bureaus,
immigration and naturalization.24 During the time period from 1903 to 1940, the
immigration agency was delegated additional responsibilities and was transferred to
a variety of different Departments. Each move reflected a perceived change in the
agency’s focus as expressed in underlying immigration law. As Congress gave the
agency additional responsibilities, it responded by making internal adjustments.25 No
reorganization legislation has been enacted since 1913.
INS Restructuring Proposals in the 105th Congress26
Congress turned its attention to restructuring INS in the 105th Congress when
the report that accompanied the FY1998 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and
the Related Agencies Appropriations Act directed the Attorney General to review
recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
(Commission) and submit a plan to Congress to restructure INS and the federal
immigration system (P.L. 105-119; H.Rept. 105-207). In addition to specific
language in the House report directing the Attorney General to submit a plan to
restructure INS, several bills were introduced that would have separated INS’s
service and enforcement functions.27
After submitting several reports to Congress, in 1997 the Commission submitted
its final report with recommendations that INS’s immigration functions be transferred
to other federal agencies. The Commission recommended that the processing of legal
immigration and naturalization claims be transferred to DOS, while the enforcement
functions remain at DOJ as an elevated enforcement bureau, with the exception of
worksite enforcement, which would be transferred to the DOL. The Commission
recommended the transfer of INS detention functions to the U.S. Marshall’s Service
or the Bureau of Prisons. It also recommended the creation of an independent
appeals board to handle all administrative appeals of immigration-related
determinations made by DOS, DOJ and DOL.
23 See
Appendices A and B for a chronology of proposals to restructure INS and INS
reorganizations.
24 37 Statute 737.
25 For example, from 1909 to 1917, numerous internal changes were made including the
creation of 23 districts responsible for general immigration services and enforcement in
1910. In 1921, the Bureau organized into three general areas: general administration, quasi-
judicial agencies, and the field service. See
Appendix B for a chronology of past INS
reorganizations.
26 Information in this section was obtained from CRS Report RL30257,
Proposals to
Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service, by William J. Krouse.
27 See, for example, H.R. 2588 and H.R. 4264.
CRS-10
In 1998, the Administration submitted to Congress its proposal to restructure
INS. The report,
A Framework for Change: The Immigration and Naturalization
Service, established a plan to separate the service and enforcement functions, and
increase managerial accountability, among other things. While acknowledging some
of the Commission’s recommendations,28 the Administration’s plan failed to address
them, according to some critics, notably the dispersal of functions to other agencies.
The plan was never fully implemented.
INS Restructuring Proposals in the 106th Congress29
There were several legislative proposals to restructure INS in the 106th
Congress. Two pieces of legislation would have expanded and elevated the
immigration service (S. 1563 and H.R. 2680), while two other bills (H.R. 2528 and
H.R. 3918) would have dismantled INS, creating two new bureaus (service and
enforcement) within DOJ.
The Administration’s Proposals
The Administration has made several proposals to restructure INS. The most
recent proposal that was adopted by Congress, in part, transfers INS’ service and
enforcement functions to a newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Preceding the Administration’s June 6, 2002 proposal to transfer INS to DHS, the
Administration carried forward a restructuring plan to split the agency’s service and
enforcement functions within INS.
June 6, 2002 Proposal30
The Administration had proposed to transfer INS to a new homeland security
department. The goal of the Administration’s proposal was to consolidate into a
single federal agency under one cabinet-level person many of the homeland security
functions performed by units within various federal agencies and departments. To
this end, the Administration plan would have placed all of the functions of INS in
two separate bureaus under the
Border and Transportation Security Division of the
proposed department. It appeared in the June 6, 2002 plan that DOS would have
retained its visa issuance responsibilities.
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) was signed into law on November 25, 2002. The Act
28 The Administration acknowledged that the Commission on Immigration Reform correctly
identified many longstanding issues within INS such as insufficient accountability between
field offices and headquarters, competing priorities within field offices, lack of consistency
in application of the law, a need for greater professionalism, overlapping organizational
relationships, and significant management weaknesses.
29 Information in this section was obtained from CRS Report RL30257,
Proposals to
Restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service, by William J. Krouse.
30 See CRS Report RL31560,
Homeland Security Proposals: Issues Regarding Transfer of
Immigration Agencies and Functions, by Lisa M. Seghetti and Ruth Ellen Wasem.
CRS-11
abolishes INS and transfers its immigration enforcement function to a newly created
Bureau of Border Security under a Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
in DHS. The Act creates an Assistant Secretary position that will be in charge of the
Bureau of Border Security and will report directly to the Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security. It transfers INS’ immigration service function to DHS
in a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Act creates a Director
position that will be in charge of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
and will report directly to the Deputy Director of DHS. The Act allows the President
to reorganize functions or organizational units within both Bureaus but explicitly
prohibits the President to join or consolidate the functions or organizational units of
these bureaus into a single agency.
P.L. 107-296 retains the visa issuance function with DOS but gives the
Secretary of DHS authority to issue regulations on visa policy.31 The Act gives
statutory authority to EOIR and keeps it under the Attorney General, and transfers
INS’ unaccompanied alien children function to DHHS’ ORR.
November 14, 2001 INS Restructuring Plan
On November 14, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft and the former INS
Commissioner James W. Ziglar unveiled a plan to restructure the then-INS. The plan
would have maintained the INS Commissioner’s position to oversee all of INS
functions. One of its main features was splitting the service and enforcement
functions into two separate bureaus. Each bureau would have had its own chain of
command and executive commissioner who would have headed the bureau.
The plan would have maintained some of the offices and positions under the
then-organizational structure, and it would have created several new offices and
positions within each bureau, including a customer relations office in the newly
created Bureau of Immigration Services and an ombudsman office in the newly
created Bureau of Immigration Enforcement; and an Office of Quality Assurance.
The plan also would have created a Director of Service Center Operations; an Office
of Asylum and Refugees within the service bureau; a Director for the International
Division; a Director for detention and removal; a Chief of the Border Patrol and
Interior Enforcement; Area Port Directors; and Special Agents in Charge within the
enforcement bureau.
In addition to the two bureaus, the plan would have created three new positions
that would have reported directly to the commissioner (a Chief Information Officer,
a Chief Financial Officer, and a Chief Administrative Officer). It also would have
created a new Office for Juvenile Affairs whose director would have reported directly
to the commissioner.32
31 See CRS Report RL31512,
Visa Issuances: Policy, Issues, and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
32 The proposed newly created Office of Juvenile Affairs would oversee INS-related matters
pertaining to unaccompanied minors.
CRS-12
On April 17, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced action on his
first steps to reorganize the then-INS.33 The Attorney General stated that INS’s
border patrol and detention facilities would have a “... more direct chain of command
...”34 Instead of reporting to Sector Chiefs, who report to Regional Directors, the
Chief Patrol Agents of the 21 border patrol sectors would report directly to the Chief
of Border Patrol, located at the former INS headquarters. The positions of Sector
Chiefs and Regional Directors were eliminated under the new organizational
structure.
The directors in charge of the then-INS’s eight Service Processing Centers35
would have also reported directly to INS headquarters, instead of to the District and
Regional Directors whose positions would have been eliminated under the new
restructuring plan.
The Attorney General also announced the launching of a search for a Chief
Financial Officer and a Chief Information Officer position to be located directly
under the former INS Commissioner. Also, an Office of Juvenile Affairs was being
established.
The Attorney General also established a “Field Advisory Board” to act as a
liaison between INS’s headquarters and the field offices during the restructuring
period. The Field Advisory Board was not included in the Administration’s
November 14, 2001 INS restructuring plan.
Restructuring Legislation in the 107th Congress
Prior to the President’s announcement about placing INS in a new homeland
security department, Congress and the Administration were moving forward with
efforts to restructure INS. Several pieces of legislation that were before the 107th
Congress would have abolished INS and would have done one of the following: (1)
created separate bureaus within DOJ to carry out INS’s current immigration services
and enforcement functions that would report to a newly created Associate Attorney
General; (2) created a new integrated immigration agency within DOJ; and (3)
dispersed INS’s service functions among a number of different agencies and create
a new enforcement agency within DOJ.
The Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and
Accountability Act of 2002 (H.R. 3231)
The “Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act of 2002”
(H.R. 3231) would have abolished INS and created an Office of Associate Attorney
General for Immigrant Affairs within the DOJ. Under the newly created Office, two
new bureaus would have been established, the Bureau of Citizenship and
33 U.S. Department of Justice. News Release.
INS Announces First Major Structural
Changes in Restructuring. Washington, April 17, 2002.
34
Ibid.
35 The INS Processing Centers are detention facilities.
CRS-13
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement. Each bureau
would have been headed by a director who would have reported to the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs. Within each Bureau would have been the
following newly created offices and positions: (1) Office of Policy and Strategy, (2)
Legal Advisor, (3) Chief Budget Officer, and (4) Office of Congressional
Intergovernmental and Public Affairs. The
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services would also have a newly created Office of Citizenship.
Under the act, the newly created
Immigration Services Bureau would have
processed immigration, refugee, asylum, and naturalization-related applications. The
Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices and
the immigration functions of the Office of Immigration Litigation from DOJ’s Civil
Rights Division would have been transferred to the Bureau.
The newly created
Immigration Enforcement Bureau would have been
responsible for all border patrol, inspections, detention, removal, investigation, and
intelligence functions. The act would have also transferred the enforcement
functions of the Office of Special Investigations from DOJ’s Criminal Division and
the enforcement functions of the Office of Immigration Litigation from DOJ’s Civil
Division to the newly created bureau.
H.R. 3231 would have created several new positions and offices within the
Office of Associate Attorney General for Immigrant Affairs: (1) Policy Advisor; (2)
General Counsel; (3) Chief Financial Officer; (4) Director of Shared Services; (5)
Office of the Ombudsman; (6) Office of Professional Responsibility and Quality
Review; and (7) Office of Children’s Affairs.
The act would have also created an Office of Immigration Statistics within the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Office would have been responsible for maintaining
all immigration-related statistics of the agency and EOIR, among other things. This
activity was under INS’s Office of Policy and Planning.
The act would have required the Attorney General to develop an internet-based
system that would have allowed customers to access online information pertaining
to the status of their immigration applications. It would have also required the
integration of databases used by both the service and enforcement bureaus with the
databases used by EOIR. The act would have authorized the Associate Attorney
General to terminate employment of any employee who willfully deceives the agency
or Congress.
The act would have transferred certain functions, personnel, and resources to the
newly created agency, authorized appropriations for the newly created agency, and
established a separate account for adjudication services’ fees collected. The act
would have authorized appropriations for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and for the Immigration Enforcement Bureau. The act would have also
established a separate account for restructuring activities.
On April 25, 2002, the House passed the act with amendments. The “manager’s
amendment,” among other things, would have: (1) required the directors of both
bureaus to develop and implement a plan that would have rotated managers and
CRS-14
supervisors among different functions of the respective bureau; (2) permitted the
Attorney General to provide “voluntary separation incentive payments” for certain
INS employees to help carry out the restructuring plan; and (3) permitted the
Attorney General to conduct a demonstration project for 5 years for the purpose of
changing policies and procedures pertaining to methods for disciplining certain
employees that would result in improved personnel management. Other amendments
would have: (1) required the Attorney General to develop and submit a plan to
Congress that would have ensured adequate legal representation for unaccompanied
minors; (2) required the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress on
whether the fees collected by the newly created Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services were sufficient to carry out the bureau’s functions; (3) required
the newly created Office of Immigration Statistics to collect statistics by regions on
the number of applications and petitions filed by aliens and denied, including the
reason for such denials; and (4) authorized the director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services to implement pilot initiatives that would have eliminated
the immigration application backlogs and prevent them from recurring.
The Immigration Reform, Accountability, Security, and
Enforcement Act of 2002 (S. 2444)
The “Immigration Reform, Accountability, Security, and Enforcement Act of
2002" (S. 2444) was introduced on May 2, 2002 by Senator Kennedy and Senator
Brownback. The act would have abolished INS and create a new Immigration
Affairs Agency within DOJ, that would have been headed by a Director. The
legislation would have created the following new positions: (1) General Counsel, (2)
Chief Financial Officer, (3) Chief of Policy and Strategy, and (4) Chief of
Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs. Two new bureaus would have
been created under the act: the Bureau of Immigration Service and Adjudication and
the Bureau of Enforcement. Both bureaus would have been headed by a Deputy
Director who would have reported to the Director of Immigration Affairs. Within
each bureau would have been the following newly created offices and positions: (1)
Chief Budget Officer, (2) Office of Quality Assurance, and (3) Office of Professional
Responsibility. The act would have placed the INS inspections function directly
under the Director of Immigration Affairs.
Under the act, the newly created
Bureau of Immigration Service and
Adjudication would have processed immigration, refugee, asylum, and naturalization-
related applications. The bureau would have made determinations pertaining to
custody and parole with regard to asylum seekers. It also would have transferred all
adjudication functions performed at service centers to the newly created bureau. The
newly created
Bureau of Enforcement would have been responsible for border patrol,
detention, removal, intelligence, and investigation functions.
The act would have created an Office of Ombudsman for the Agency and an
Office of the Children’s Services within DOJ. The newly created Office of
Ombudsman would have assisted individuals in problem resolution, identified
systemic problems, proposed changes to mitigate problems, and monitored the local
offices. The newly created Office of the Children’s Services would have overseen
all functions pertaining to the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children,
CRS-15
including coordinating and implementing law and policy for unaccompanied alien
children that came into DOJ’s custody.
The act would have created an Office of Immigration Statistics within the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The office would have been responsible for maintaining
all immigration-related statistics of the agency and the EOIR, among other things.36
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on May 2, 2002
and no further action was taken.
The Immigration Restructuring and Accountability Act of
2001 (H.R. 1562)
The “Immigration Restructuring and Accountability Act of 2001” (H.R. 1562)
would have replaced INS with a newly created Office of the Associate Attorney
General for Immigration Affairs within DOJ. The Associate Attorney General for
Immigration Affairs would have been in charge of two newly created bureaus: the
Bureau of Immigration Services, and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement.
The following offices and positions would have been under the Associate
Attorney General for Immigration Affairs: (1) Counsel, (2) Chief Financial Officer,
(3) Office of Shared Services, and (4) Office of Immigration Quality Assurance,
Professional Responsibility, and Customer Service.
The act would have created a position of the Director and an Office of
Children’s Affairs in each bureau. It would have charged the Bureau of Immigration
Services with those functions that were under immigration services in INS. The
Bureau of Immigration Enforcement would have been charged with those functions
that were under immigration enforcement in INS, with the exception of INS
inspections. The act was silent regarding INS inspections.
The act would have required the Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor
to develop an internet-based system that would have allowed customers to access
online information pertaining to the status of applications. The act would have
transferred certain functions, personnel, and resources to the newly created Office.
The bill was referred to several House committees in April 2001, and no further
action was taken.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization
Act of 2002 (H.R. 4108)
The “Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization Act of 2002"
(H.R. 4108) would have abolished INS and the position of INS Commissioner. The
act would have created a Bureau for Immigration Enforcement within DOJ. The act
36 This activity is currently under INS’s Office of Policy and Planning.
CRS-16
would have created a position of Director to head the newly created bureau. The
bureau would have performed those functions that were under immigration
enforcement at INS, and it would have permitted the detention program to be
delegated to the Federal Detention Trustee. The act would have also created a
position of General Counsel for the bureau.
The act would have transferred other INS’ functions to different agencies. For
example, immigration services would have been transferred to DOS, and
employment-related immigration functions would have been transferred to DOL.
The act would have provided for the appropriate transfer of personnel and resources
to the respective agencies.
The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee on April
9, 2002, and no further action was taken.
Analysis of Selected Options to Restructure INS
All of the proposals to restructure INS had one aspect in common: they would
have separated INS’s two primary functions of providing immigrant services and
enforcing the immigration law. Some critics contended, however, that there were
problems with this approach. Separating the services and enforcement functions,
according to some critics, does not address those immigration activities that have
dual functions. In their service function, immigration inspectors are often the first
line of contact for all aliens seeking entry into the country, including asylum seekers
who may not have proper documents. In their enforcement function, immigration
inspectors are on the front line for enforcing immigration law and securing the
nation’s borders. While these two core functions were clearly delineated at the policy
making level, some critics believed that splitting the two functions could exacerbate
problems with the front line implementation of the competing service and
enforcement policies. For example, the immigration inspector must make an
immediate determination that an undocumented alien, or someone who has
questionable documents, should be excluded or detained for further processing by an
immigration court. Immigration inspectors, moreover, are also expected to facilitate
tourism and commerce while enforcing the law.
Another example of a front line function having both service and enforcement
components involves the processing of immigrant and naturalization petitions by
adjudicators. The adjudicators must be able to do thorough background checks,
detect fraudulent or inadmissible claims, and enforce the law when such a claim is
present.
Another concern about separating the service and enforcement functions
pertained to the functions’ budgets. Although the proposals would have created
separate budgets and given each function’s mission equal attention, historically
immigration enforcement function has received more resources than the immigrant
service function. The immigrant service function is primarily a fee-driven operation,
CRS-17
and over the years critics charged that there have been few direct appropriations to
supplement undercharged or lost fees,37 as well as overhead and administrative costs.
Option I: Keep INS Intact, While Separating the Service
and Enforcement Functions
Some proposals would have kept INS intact and created two separate bureaus
for the service and enforcement functions.38 Because the Attorney General has broad
authority to administer immigration laws, the Administration maintained it could
implement this reorganization plan without legislation.
Proposals that would have kept INS intact and created two separate bureaus
would, in theory, enhance managerial accountability. Both bureaus would report to
the same centralized head, the INS Commissioner. The bureaus’ roles would be
more clearly defined as the functions would be separated, which would provide less
opportunity for personnel to perform both functions.39 And, some critics asserted that
keeping INS intact but separating its functions, could provide for a better
coordination and sharing of efforts between the bureaus. The ease of obtaining
information from the opposite bureau would be strengthened under this type of
organizational structure. Opponents argued, however, that it is not clear how such
a proposal would improve some of INS’s longstanding systemic issues such as weak
management controls and antiquated database systems as well as the fragmentation
of some functions across INS and other agencies.
Option II: Dismantle INS and Create Two Separate Bureaus
Within DOJ
Another popular proposal to restructure INS included dismantling INS and
creating two new bureaus within DOJ to carry out INS’s functions of providing
immigrant services and enforcing the immigration law. All of the proposals to
dismantle INS and create two separate bureaus would have a person in charge of each
bureau. They differed, however, as to who would be responsible for overseeing the
heads of the two bureaus and their functioning.
Proposals to dismantle INS, and, in essence, create new bureaus would provide
lawmakers and officials a “clean slate.” Some asserted, however, that this approach
could compound the deficiencies in INS’s management controls and weak
information systems. In light of the events of September 11, 2001, the need for both
functions to share information with one another is paramount in order for U.S.
37 INS charges a fee to process the various types of immigrant applications (i.e., visa and
naturalization applications).
38 As mentioned earlier, this is the approach taken by Attorney General Ashcroft in his
recent restructuring initiative.
39 have Under the current organizational structure, the functions are blurred, creating an
atmosphere that reportedly invites personnel to engage in performing both functions. Issues
such as personnel not having proper training in the other function and being spread too thin
are of concern to some critics.
CRS-18
immigration policy to be effective. Opponents argued that dismantling INS and
establishing new entities within DOJ could exacerbate the already existing problem
of information sharing between the two functions. All of the proposals, supporters
contended, addressed this issue by creating an office of shared support under a newly
created position of Associate Attorney General or under the Director’s jurisdiction.
Option III: Dismantle INS and Disperse Its Functions to Other
Agencies
A final approach that had been advanced in the 107th Congress would have
dismantled INS and dispersed its immigrant service functions to other federal
agencies that have related functions (while creating a new agency within DOJ to
carry out INS’s enforcement functions). Transferring INS’s service functions to
those agencies that already perform related functions would address concerns
regarding perceived fragmentation of efforts. Also, by removing INS’s service
functions from DOJ, primarily a law enforcement agency, some commentators
believed that these functions would receive more attention.
On the other hand, opponents contended that such an approach would transfer
these functions to agencies that do not view immigration issues as fundamental to
their missions. Moreover, INS’s two functions are interdependent, in particular
regarding their databases, and separating the two functions and placing them in
separate agencies with separate heads, critics contended, may further complicate their
ability to share information with one another.
Border Consolidation Proposals
The idea of consolidating agencies’ border security functions is not a new
concept. Proposals to consolidate border security-related functions were advanced
as early as 1930.40
Several proposals had been advanced in the 107th Congress to consolidate the
agencies that have border security-related functions. The Director of Homeland
Security, Tom Ridge, had proposed several plans to consolidate INS’s border patrol
and inspections functions, the U.S. Customs Service inspections function, and the
Coast Guard into one “super agency.”
Several pieces of legislation were introduced in the 107th Congress that would
have merged these functions into a newly created department or agency. All of the
proposals would have transferred the following agencies with border security-related
functions to a newly created department or agency:41 (1) the U.S. Customs Service,
40 For historical information on proposals to reorganize federal agencies that have border
management responsibilities see: CRS report 97-974,
Reorganization Proposals for U.S.
Border Management Agencies, by Frederick M. Kaiser.
41 Several other agencies’ functions would also be transferred to this new department or
(continued...)
CRS-19
(2) the INS’s border patrol, and (3) the Coast Guard. The U.S. Customs Service and
the Coast Guard would have been maintained as distinct entities within the new
department or agency. Also, all of the proposals would have charged the new
department or agency with coordinating homeland security activities, including
border security functions, among other provisions.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) consolidates several
agencies responsible for border security under a newly created DHS.42
The Department of National Border Security Act of 2002
(S. 2020)
The “Department of National Border Security Act of 2002" (S. 2020) would
have established a Department of National Border Security, headed by a cabinet-level
Secretary of National Border Security.
The Senate bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
on March 15, 2002, and no further action was taken.
National Border Security Agency Act (H.R. 3600)
The “National Security Agency Act” (H.R. 3600) would have established a
National Border Security Agency, that would have been headed by a Director who
would have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In
addition to coordinating and integrating border security-related activities, the Director
would have acted as the “focal point” with respect to enforcing U.S. immigration
laws.
The bill was referred to several committees in December 2001, and no further
action was taken.
Analysis of Border Consolidation Proposals
All of the proposals to consolidate the border management functions of federal
agencies that have such responsibilities concentrated principally on merging three
entities: INS’ border patrol and inspections functions, U.S. Customs Service
inspections function, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The proposals would have created
a new cabinet-level agency or department and one such proposal, the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), was signed into law.
41 (...continued)
agency, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Critical Infrastructure
Assurance Office, the Institute of Information Infrastructure Protection (of the Commerce
Department), and the National Infrastructure Protection Center and the National Domestic
Preparedness Office (of the Federal Bureau of Investigation).
42 See “The Administration’s Proposals” section above.
CRS-20
These proposals sought to address concerns of duplicative functions that were
being performed by several different agencies.43 Duplication of efforts raises
concerns such as waste of resources (i.e., funds, personnel, and equipment) that
would also be addressed by consolidating the responsible agencies. Also, merging
these agencies addresses concerns about rivalry that may have existed between them
and their lack of coordination and communication with one another.
According to some opponents, the proposals did not address concerns pertaining
to the need for information sharing between the immigrant service and immigration
enforcement functions. Moreover, opponents contended that immigrant service and
immigration enforcement have overlapping functions, and interagency coordination
would be harmed if the two functions are split. Also, they argued, the proposals did
not address how the differing missions would be balanced. Examples of the latter
concern would be facilitating trade versus maintaining national security and
protecting the health and safety of U.S. citizens versus facilitating tourism and
cultural exchange.
43 INS inspections and U.S. Customs inspections both perform inspections at ports of entry.
Although both have different functions (INS inspects people who present themselves for
entry into the country and the U.S. Customs Service inspects goods), some observers have
argued that there is a potential for overlap.
CRS-21
Appendix A
Chronology of Selected INS Reorganization Proposals44
The following chronology highlights selected proposals set forth by
administrative or congressional studies, as well as administration-advanced proposals
to reorganize INS.
! 1930 — President Hoover proposed to unify the border patrol
functions of the INS, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Coast Guard
and place them under the Coast Guard in the Department of Treasury
(President Hoover made the same proposal in 1932). Also, the
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee proposed
consolidating the border patrol and inspections functions of INS and
the Customs Service inspections function under the Treasury
Department.
! 1931 — The Wickersham Commission Report recommended
separating the service and enforcement functions.
! 1932 — The Bureau of Efficiency recommended consolidating the
Immigration Bureau’s border patrol functions with the Coast Guard
in the Department of Treasury.
! 1937 — The Byrd Committee Report recommended consolidating
the inspections and border patrol functions of INS and the Customs
Service.
! 1940 — The Bureau of the Budget recommended consolidating the
inspections and border patrol functions of INS and the Customs
Service.
! 1948 — Customs’ Management Improvement Study suggested the
creation of a federal border enforcement agency.
! 1949 — The Commission on the Organization of the Executive
Branch of the Government (the Hoover Commission) recommended
the creation of a new independent agency to perform immigration
functions.
! 1950 — The Senate Committee on the Judiciary Report No. 1515
recommended consolidating the functions of INS and Customs
Service only where such consolidations would not impair
enforcement or immigration laws.
! 1953 — The President’s Commission on Immigration and
Naturalization (the Perlman Commission) recommended the creation
of a new independent agency to perform immigration functions.1957
— The Commission on Government Security (the Wright
44 Information in the chronology was obtained, in part, from the following sources: U.S.
Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
History of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Committee print, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.; and The Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace.
Reorganizing the Immigration Function: Toward a
New Framework for Accountability, by Demetrios Papademetriou, Alexander Aleinikoft,
and Deborah W. Meyers. Washington 1998.
CRS-22
Commission) recommended the transfer of the Visa Division of
DOS to DOJ.
! 1966 — the Government Accounting Office recommended
consolidating the inspections functions of INS and the Customs
Service to achieve a “one-stop inspections process. Similar
recommendations were made in 1962 by a
Customs’ Citizens Task
Force Report and in a 1968
Bureau of the Budget Interagency
Report.
! 1973 — Nixon’s Reorganization Plan No. 2 recommended
transferring the inspection functions of INS to the Customs Service
in the Department of Treasury.
! 1974 — An Office of Management and Budget Report (House
Government Operations Committee Report on Border Law
Enforcement and Problems of Customs-INS Coordination)
recommended a single-agency management strategy for the border.
! 1977 — The Office of Drug Abuse Policy report recommended a
single agency, to include INS and the Customs Service, to perform
port-of-entry inspections and border patrol.
! 1978 — The President’s Reorganization Project recommended
transferring the visa functions of DOS to DOJ, and also
recommended consolidating INS inspections and border patrol
functions with the Customs Service in a border management agency
in the Treasury Department.
! 1981— The Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and
Refugee Policy recommended separating the service and
enforcement functions, while keeping INS intact.
! 1983 — The Grace Commission Task Forces on the Department of
Treasury and Justice recommended consolidating INS border patrol
and inspections with Customs Service inspections.
! 1990 — The Report of the Commission for the Study of
International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development
recommended centralizing the immigration and refugee-related
functions by creating a new immigration agency.
! 1997 — Report of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
recommended dismantling INS and creating a new independent
bureau for INS’s enforcement function, placing INS’s service
function under the Department of State, and its immigrant labor-
related functions under the Department of Labor.
CRS-23
Appendix B
Chronology of Implemented INS Reorganizations45
The following chronology highlights significant agency reorganizations. The
reorganization mandated by legislation is italicized.
! 1891 — The Bureau of Immigration was established in the
Department of Treasury to ensure federal control over immigration.
Its original function was to provide for the exclusion of certain
categories of aliens.
! 1903 — The Bureau of Immigration was transferred from the
Department of Treasury to the newly created Department of
Commerce and Labor. During this period, regulating foreign labor
was seen as an important immigration function.
! 1906 — Naturalization functions were added to the Bureau to form
the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.
!
1913 —
Congress passed an Act that abolished the Department of
Commerce and Labor and created two separate Departments: the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor (DOL).46
The Act also provided for the transfer of the Bureau of Immigration
and Naturalization to the newly created Department of Labor, and
it divided the Bureau into two sections: the Bureau of Immigration
and the Bureau of Naturalization, headed by two commissioners.
! 1924 — As a result of increased illegal border crossings, Congress
recognized the need for enforcement measures to stem illegal entries
in the 1924 Immigration Act (4. Stat. 153), and a subsequent
appropriations act (43 Stat. 240) led to the creation of an expanded
border patrol.47 Prior to the formal creation of a border patrol, the
Bureau had maintained a small force of mounted guards on the U.S.-
Mexico border. The new border patrol extended to the U.S.-Canada
border.
! 1933 — The Bureau of Immigration and the Bureau of
Naturalization were combined to form the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
! 1940 — INS was transferred from DOL to the Department of Justice
(DOJ). During this war time period, national security was a primary
concern, prompting an emphasis on providing more effective control
over aliens. Many organizational changes occurred as a result of the
45 Information in the chronology was obtained from the following source: U.S. Congress.
Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
History of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. Committee Print, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.
46 37 Stat. 737.
47 Congress recognized the need to enforce the immigration laws with regards to preventing
illegal aliens from entering the country in the 1924 Immigration Act; and in the
appropriations act, Congress created the border patrol.
CRS-24
transfer to the DOJ, including growth in personnel, and the
establishment of additional divisions.
! 1952 — There was an administrative reorganization of the central
office that was prompted by the passage of the Immigration and
Naturalization Act of 1952.
! 1955 — There was a service-wide reorganization that included the
creation of regional offices to oversee field activities, realignment
and reduction of field offices, and the establishment of a field
inspection and security division. The 1955 reorganization also
included a reduction in personnel.
! 1979 — There was an administrative reorganization of the central
office.
! 1991 — There was an administrative reorganization of the central
office.
! 1994 — There was an administrative reorganization that included
the creation of four Executive Associate Commissioners for
programs, policy and planning, management, and field operations.