From the President’s Desk
U.S. Immigration System Falls Short on
Service In a few weeks, the long summer will draw to a close and Congress will reconvene, taking up as its major order of business a reorganization of the federal government that will result in the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security. The original goal was to secure passage of legislation by September 11. It is now doubtful that this deadline will be met, as a political battle over whether employees of the new department will retain civil service status makes a mid-fall date more likely. Under every reorganization plan now receiving serious consideration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as we have known it, would be dismantled. The House has passed a bill that would split the INS in two, moving the enforcement functions to the new Department of Homeland Security while leaving the provision of services in the Department of Justice. The companion Senate bill is still pending, but the Judiciary Committee recommendation would shift all INS functions to Homeland Security, splitting them upon arrival into distinct and parallel units of enforcement and service, under one “immigration” umbrella. INS Commissioner James W. Ziglar has already announced his plans to retire from federal public service following the change. As the day approaches when the fate of the INS will be determined, it is bitter to reflect that the future agency responsible for immigrants may be no better than what now exists. Change is desperately needed in how our nation handles immigration—and in how it handles immigrants themselves. Change for the INS was on the horizon before the difficult year inflicted on us by the attacks of September 11, but now that we are hurtling toward the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, it appears far less likely that the outcome for our immigration system will be one favored by LIRS. For years LIRS has been observer, critic and partner to the INS. We have worked with some of the finest public servants ever employed by the U.S. government, but we have also seen immigrants’ hopes and lives destroyed by the inability of the INS, as structured, to truly prioritize immigrants’ needs when warranted. The mission of the INS has been enforcement above all, and few of the functions intended to benefit immigrants have been given the priority new Americans, residents and visitors deserve. Sadly LIRS has seen and experienced the legendary bureaucratic chaos of the INS: misplaced records, unconscionable delays, contradictory procedures, unclear lines of authority and accountability—all exacerbated by a widespread tolerance for unimaginable rudeness and indifference toward immigrants on the part of INS line staff. How will any of this be improved by moving part or all of the INS to Homeland Security? If security trumps all other considerations, what happens to immigrants whose lives must intersect with immigration officials? One clear danger is that services will be given deficient resources and attention, worsening the backlog and confusion that plague the system today. Another danger is that decision-making that affects immigrants will be taken behind the security veil. This is nothing new. To give one grim example, the INS has practiced what has amounted to “secret” detention for years before September 11, shifting people to remote locations without notice. The current controversy over this practice masks the true number of years that many decisions of the INS have been carried out away from any meaningful public oversight. This tendency toward lack of accountability within the current culture of the immigration service could be a toxic combination with the approaches becoming increasingly evident in the emerging security regime. The political reality is that the INS will soon be voted out of existence. LIRS continues to look for an approach within the unpalatable array of options that will do the least damage. Without great enthusiasm, LIRS has supported splitting the current agency’s functions between the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, although we have strong reservations about the formulation of this strategy in the House legislation. Our core concerns are that immigration services should be enhanced rather than diminished and that there should be improved accountability. The prospects are not hopeful. Whatever emerges
with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, let’s
hope that is doesn’t make us nostalgic for the “good
old days of the INS.”
«
Previous Article | Next Article »
|
 No. 230
|