NCJ Number
175369
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 84 (July 1998) Issue: Dated: Pages: -
Date Published
1998
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Three proposals to change or eliminate the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) are a source of extensive debate among policy makers and of concern among immigration attorneys, who argue that breaking up the INS would foist immigration responsibilities on other Federal entities that are unlikely to make them priorities.
Abstract
The INS now has a record backlog of more than 1.7 citizenship applications. Its recent mishaps include naturalizing thousands of people without conducting proper criminal background checks. The numbers of citizenship applications, political asylum requests and deportations have increased substantially in recent years. In September 1997 the United States Commission on Immigration Reform recommended abolishing the INS and dividing its duties among other Federal agencies. A consultant's audit in January 1998 cited bad customer service and mismanagement. Crucial Republicans in Congress would like to eliminate the agency, while the Clinton Administration has proposed preserving the agency while splitting off its border patrol and other law enforcement functions from its other duties. A report by the Carnegie Endowment recommends elevating the INS to a cabinet-level agency. Immigration lawyers widely oppose dismantling the INS; even the administration's proposal would represent a drastic change for them. The immigration lawyers group has endorsed the Carnegie Endowment's proposal, although it appears to have less support than either than the others. Many attorneys believe that the INS needs stability more than reorganization. However, a reduction in election-year rhetoric and polls indicating changing public attitudes may provide a calmer mood in which policymakers can consider the future of immigration law and the INS. Photographs