[Waitone]

Will be interesting to see if immigration control is really a priority. At least they will do away with the INS.
*****************

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0131INS31.html


March 1 will mark the end of problem-splattered INS

By Sergio Bustos
Gannett News Service
Jan. 31, 2003


WASHINGTON - Lawmakers won't have the Immigration and Naturalization Service to kick around anymore as of March 1 when the beleaguered federal agency will cease to exist.


The move to put border security, immigration law and citizenship issues under the new Homeland Security Department marks the end of an agency officially born in 1933 and with roots that date to the late 1800s, when the federal government first began regulating the flow of immigrants into the United States.

During the past century, the Treasury Department, state and local courts, the Labor Department and the Justice Department all had a hand in keeping track of foreigners.

But the last time the INS changed places within the federal bureaucracy's organizational chart was in 1940. At the time, President Franklin Roosevelt, citing "national security" concerns before the United States entered World War II, made it part of the Justice Department.

He even temporarily moved its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia.

Similar national security issues prompted President Bush and Congress to shift the responsibilities of the INS from Justice to the newly created Department of Homeland Security.

"It is not surprising that the president would want to move the INS to a new Department of Homeland Security because the INS has traditionally reflected the priorities of the day," said T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a senior associate with the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank here.

The beginning of the end for the INS began in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Angry lawmakers howled for changes after learning several of the 19 hijackers were in the country illegally at the time of the attacks. The outcry grew louder last March when INS officials admitted sending visa-notification letters to two of the hijackers - six months after the attacks.

Bush and a parade of lawmakers say new immigration agencies will be more effective than the INS.

"There will be a coordinated effort to . . . secure the border so that we're better able to protect our citizens and welcome our friends," Bush said in signing the bill to create the Homeland Security Department last November.

Under the reorganization plan, the INS will be part of a new department with 170,000 employees and 22 federal agencies. Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge announced Thursday that he will put the INS, the Border Patrol and two other federal agencies under the same roof with the same boss. This new bureau, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, will deal with people before they enter the country.

He also created a second agency to track down potential violators once in the country, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A third division, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, will be charged with processing millions of residency and citizenship applications.

The INS had a dismal record in enforcing the law or managing the arrival of legal immigrants.

Consider: A backlog of residency and citizenship applications had skyrocketed in recent years, frustrating millions of legal immigrants. And the number of illegal immigrants had reached 8 million to 9 million, up from 5 million in 1996.

This despite the fact that the INS budget rose from $1.2 billion in 1993 to nearly $6 billion in fiscal year 2002, which ended Sept. 30. The number of employees increased from 17,000 to 36,000.

But immigration critics and advocates alike argue that the INS never was given enough money by Congress to do either job well. And they said it's unclear whether Congress or the Bush administration is committed to boosting the budget of the new agencies, especially with the government expected to run deficits over the next several years.

Immigration critics question whether Bush or Congress will crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and reduce the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country.

"Now the test will be whether the politicians are prepared to back up (the Homeland Security Department) with deeds," said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"That means setting rules, enforcing rules and never rewarding the people who break the rules. Without the political will to do this, the new immigration agency will be no more successful than the old one, and the American public will be no more secure than they are right now."

Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, is among a chorus of immigration advocates troubled by putting immigration services in a department whose priority is to keep out terrorists. She fears that all immigrants will be treated as potential terrorists and that the new agencies won't work together.

"We cannot fracture the immigration agency into completely separate pieces, with enforcement swallowed up in one huge division and services in another, and expect coordination, accountability or adequate attention to the immigration agency's critical service and enforcement functions," she said.

[bogie]

I used to know a guy who considered a problem to be solved when it was renamed.

[Marko Kloos]

Restructuring is an old corporate trick. Rename the joint, and shuffle the organizational tree around, and you create the illusion of progress and action.

[Frohickey]

How about instituting a 'commission' program for border security employees, or better yet, expand it to the entire Homeland Defense Department.

Lets see... $100 for each illegal alien that is caught and deported, paid in cash to the government employee.

9 million illegal aliens... $900 million dollars in extra bonuses for people that catch them. Thats cheap considering the $15 billion we are going to send to Africa to get them to stop spreading AIDS around.

[larry_minn]

I worked for a Gov agency that was consolidated into two others. All it did was cost the taxpayers $$$$$$$ All forms that had my agency or other two were dumped (I still have lots of recycled printer paper) :) Then new forms with new (name) printed. Nobody lost a job and a super director was hired to oversee all three depts. Plus remodeling of offices so doorways between the. BUT heaven forbid that somone from THEM uses OUR copy machine because THEIRS is broke. I figure it cost over $80k on average a year MORE.
The good thing is you have tons more people to blame when something is lost. :)

[Barney]

Well I happened to be around in the early '70's when President Nixon and Congress did a reorganization in the name of better Drug Enforcement. The then BNDD, (Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs), was merged with Customs Enforcement along with several small agencies from various departments in the Federal Government. At that time Customs enforcement was a plain clothes investigative branch station mostly along our borders, and concentrated on Narcotics smuggling. What they really did was sit on their butts while US Border Patrolman caught the smugglers, and then handed the cases and the drugs over to them. The new agency they formed was called the DEA, short for Drug Enforcement Agency. I'll let the rest of you decide if it was successful. We will see perhaps over the next 5 to 10 years if "Homeland Security" will be successful?

[ahenry]

I can tell you for a fact that as of earlier today nobody actually knows just how everything is going to “mesh” together. As we speak the heads of all the various areas are discussing how to fit together (or not together as the case maybe). This week should be a fairly interesting one as far as DHS goes, but anybody that tells you that “Its going to be this way, for sure” is misinformed. Other than the names and the overall functions of the variously named bureaus nothing is actually for sure. I could probably fill a page with the various rumors that have floated around since the inception of the DHS, but I’ll hold off and wait till some decisions are actually made. For what its worth, so far, all the professed objectives and probable mergers of the DHS are positive. The devil is in the details however.

[Blackhawk]

All of the alphabet agencies end up creating empires among the long time civil service employees (a.k.a. bureaucrats) that are antithetical to the purposes of the agency. They end up obstructing the overlapping efforts of other agencies. Restructuring every so often is, IMO, a good policy even if there isn't an acute need as there is now.

A bureaucrat's first priority is always to make himself indispensable as reflected in Parkinson's Law. However, we're all expendable.

Bottom line: I'm in favor of shaking things up by reorganizations just as a matter of policy. Helps the cream to rise to the top so we're not always stuck with the cream of the crap.

[DeltaElite]

What's old is new again.

Won't change a thing folks, just govt as usual.:banghead:

[TallPine]

I'm sure that the DHS will be able to more efficiently not do the job that the INS was previously not doing.

:D

[Bruce H]

Anything that will make Tom Ridge look like an idiot is fine with me.

[Standing Wolf]

<sarcasm> I'm sure most of the millions upon millions of illegal aliens that infest our nation are scared silly about this. </sarcasm>

[ahenry]

I'm sure that the DHS will be able to more efficiently not do the job that the INS was previously not doing. :D HAHAHA

<sarcasm> I'm sure most of the millions upon millions of illegal aliens that infest our nation are scared silly about this. </sarcasm> Well most (if not all) of their advocacy groups are pretty much in a tizzy over all of this. That is a fairly positive endorsement, if you ask me (which you didn’t). ;)

[Erik]

DHS/DBTS/BCBP and DHS/DBTS/BICE should be a significant improvement over the current INS, USCS, and APHIS quagmire.

Specific to the INS, the replacement of management by predominantly USCS leaders is a hugh lead forward.

But... Regardless of who they are and who they head up, the improvements are largely dependent on the will of the appointees, and thus the administration, over them.

[BigG]

Lendringser called it. That's called de ole shell game around gumt/corp circles. :rolleyes:

[ahenry]

Actually Erik called it.

[Hawkman]

When they disband the IRS give me a call...:rolleyes:

[BigG]

Excuse me ahenry, but you need to read a bit further up. Lendringser pinned the tail on the restructuring donkey. Erik just elaborated. I'm a long time gomt employee :o with plenty of experience in internal and external spin games. :eek:

[M1911]

A friend of mine is a detention deportation officer for the INS. They've been trying for years to get the INS split up. The current structure is that at each office there is one person in charge of all functions -- both the service side and the enforcement side. Usually the person in charge came up from the service side and as a result is completely clueless about law enforcement. I think restructuring can help them.

That said, restructuring alone won't fix the problem. First, the laws are such that it is way, way to difficult and time consuming to deport someone. Those laws need to be changed so that if someone breaks the immigration laws that they're deported forthwith. None of this release-on-recognizance, after which they scram and don't show up for follow-up hearings.

Second, state and local law enforcement have to be enabled to detain people suspected of immigration violations.

Third, we're going to need a whole lot more jail cells for people waiting for deportation.

Fourth, we'll need a lot more deportation officers.

In one major east coast city, the annual goal for deportations for the entire unit is 500. There has to be at least 10 (or maybe 100) times that many illegals in their area.

There's no way we're going to get a handle on our borders doing what we're doing, but only a little more aggressively. We'll have to make major changes to the system. The problem is that neither political party has the stomach to do so. Talk to the Democrats about illegals and they think future voters. The Republicans don't want to piss off the businesses employing the illegals, and they're also courting the hispanic vote.

I'm not anti-immigrant, nor am I racist. All four of my grandparents immigrated to this country. But they did so legally.

[ahenry]

I did read farther up. This is much more than “an old corporate trick” creating “the illusion of progress and action”. As I said, the professed objectives are very positive. As I also said the devil is in the details. Splitting the INS in two is positive in and of itself. Mandating the “director” of come from a law enforcement background is another stellar move that has been begged for by the BP for [i]years. There are quite a few other less noticeable things that are really a great improvement and far more than a shell game. Just because restructuring is often a tool used to create an illusion of improvement doesn’t mean that restructuring is only an illusion of improvement. Sometimes a change like this actually does accomplish some worthwhile things. In this case there is every reason to believe that the latter is the case.

[BigG]

Touche, old friend. Guess I'm just a bit jaded about all the new and improved restructurings I've been thru and witnessed.

Maybe GW is not too good to be true. We can only hope!

[ahenry]

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but I find my life to be more enjoyable when I can look to possible/probable good things rather than assured bad ones. Like you, I'll just have to wait and see though.

Guess I'm just a bit jaded about all the new and improved restructurings I've been thru and witnessed. Gov't jobs will do that to you. :(

[Barney]

M1911: What do you mean that the INS be split up? The INS came under the Justice Department and consisted of 3 separate entities. 1. Travel Control (Immigration Inspectors, Immigration Examiners, etc.) 2. Investigations. 3. Border Patrol. Each of these came under different bosses within their respective organization. I am a little confused also about all the Deportations you talk about. The Border Patrol very seldom deported anyone. What they did was grant a voluntary Return to Mexico for Mexican Nationals which was the bulk of their arrests. The returns were voluntary based on the Illegal Aliens aggrement. He had to sign a document stating such. The aliens were then actually taken to the Border and released into Mexico. Years ago they flew them into the interior but stopped that practice because of the cost. The standard policy for years was 3 voluntary returns and the alien could and possible would be sent up for formal Deportation. I have been away from it for awhile so perhaps it has changed somewhat?

[NewShooter78]

Well I'm not so worried about the INS. Nothing restructuring can do will ebb the flow of illegals into this country. And Mexico isn't the biggest problem, its our neighbors to the north that I most worry about. That and the amount of illegals that fly into major cities like say, New York, and just disappear after being given a hearing.

What I'm most worried about, and anxious to see, is what the DHS will do to the USCG. Its been shuffled from the Treasury Department to the Department of Transportation, and now to the DHS. God only knows what will happen to them now.

[Alan Smithiee]

maybe I'll finnaly be able to get an answer about if my citizenship application was one of the ones shredded by by INS contractors when they got behind with the paperwork...

I can dream

[M1911]

M1911: What do you mean that the INS be split up? The INS came under the Justice Department and consisted of 3 separate entities. 1. Travel Control (Immigration Inspectors, Immigration Examiners, etc.) 2. Investigations. 3. Border Patrol. Each of these came under different bosses within their respective organization. I am a little confused also about all the Deportations you talk about. The Border Patrol very seldom deported anyone. Barney: I'm not talking about Border Patrol at all. I'm talking about INS detention and deportation. They do deport people all the time. My friend has done deportations to garden spots in the Caribbean, Africa, Middle East, Far East, and Eastern Europe. Most of the folks he's deported have served time for felony convictions.

It is my understanding, directly from him, an INS Detention and Deportation officer (not Border Patrol), that they have historically reported to the local district office. The local district office head is responsible for both the service side and detention/deportation. That local district office head is typically completely clueless about enforcement.

M1911

[Barney]

M1911: Thanks for getting me straight. Sorry I misunderstood you. I suppose that could be a problem but there were other problems associated with the INS, namely the policies at the Port of Entry that cause the illegal Immigration in the first place. The biggest problem the INS has always had was letting too many aliens in the country without proper screening. Local Border Crossers from Mexico is the biggest problem. I suspect that will continue. Second biggest problem is F1 Non-immigrants which are Students. The next biggest problem was and still will be the problem of keeping track of Border Crossers from Mexico that have documents authorizing them to go pass the 25 mile limit. Monitoring and keeping close tabs on F1 Students is another big problem. Workers brought in under the non-immigrant Visa H1B often time also get lossed in the shuffle. Barney

[Coronach]

Not gun related, so it can't be in General. However, legal and political would fit...

Mike

[M1911]

Barney: Yup, there's lots of other problems with the INS. Inadequate screening is a real big problem. The easily abused asylum rules are another problem.

Some of these problems are due to the agency itself. Some are due to laws passed by congress and their liberal interpretation by immigration judges.

[Erik]

So to keep thing gun related, anyone care to comment on which pistol will become standardized?

INS issues Berreta 96Ds and HK USPc 40S&W depending on position. Though apparently everyone is currently being issued the HKs at the academies, as the Beretta contract is up. (The appropration tests and haggling is currently under way.)

Customs issues the G17s and (I think) the 9mm HK USPc, again depending on position.

APHIS... I'm not sure what they issue.

Keep in mind that the numbers of armed INS officers and agents exceed the combined totals from USCS and APHIS.

There... That aught to be "gunny" enough.

;)

[ahenry]

The NFU tests are now over. Nothing has spilled yet as to the new weapon, but they still issue the Berretta at the academy. The original word was that agents could get whatever the new approved weapon (at their expense) in January. That has changed to June, but I wouldn’t necessarily figure it would happen then either. I hear the rumor that HK, Sig, and Glock all submitted pistols for the test that just finished. I also know that Glock failed the last test (when the Berretta was picked) miserably, and I have no idea if they managed to do better this time, though I would suspect that they did. I wouldn’t think trainees would get issued the new weapon until late this year. IF all the combined agencies start being issued the same weapon, my money would be that what the INS selects (through the latest NFU test) would be what was selected for anything across the board. Just a guess though.

[M1911]

IIRC, the uniformed detention/deportation officers must carry the 96 when uniformed, but can carry the USPc off duty. Plain clothes investigators are issued the USPc.

[Erik]

Aherny,
The three guys at my port who got back from FLETC last week were pretty bummed that they missed the HK cut by one class. Per them, the two Insector classes following them were issued the HKs. How long that will last is anyone's guess, though.

But regardless of what the INS issues now, or may in the next year or so, what might the future hold. Anyone got a crystal ball handy?

[ahenry]

The three guys at my port who got back from FLETC last week were pretty bummed that they missed the HK cut by one class. Per them, the two Insector classes following them were issued the HKs. How long that will last is anyone's guess, though. Ah. I was speaking specifically of the BP, my knowledge becomes more spotty when it comes to Immigration Inspectors. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Can’t they go buy their own HK though? Everybody else can and I thought II's could carry the USP on duty. No?


But regardless of what the INS issues now, or may in the next year or so, what might the future hold. Anyone got a crystal ball handy? My money is on the USP. Glock previously had problems with the hot INS load and I’m not convinced they were able to fix things, or were even inclined to for that matter. Berretta, while performing great in the first tests years ago, has since had lots of problems. Additionally, I think that Berretta was unwilling to guarantee their pistols if the ammo came from multiple sources (this is somewhat rumor, so use your salt). My guess with the Sig is that they’ll be too expensive, even though cost is a small portion of the overall selection process. I don’t really see any other manufacturers out there with an existing weapon that could compete. Of course that’s not to say they didn’t come up with a new pistol for just this purpose, the INS contract is pretty large, I just don’t really see it happening. I really think the competition came down to Sig, Glock, and HK. And I don’t think Sig or Glock could match the HK on the cost and reliability fronts respectively. As to the combining agencies and weapons is concerned, who knows? I don’t see that becoming an issue however. Of all the issues that face the DHS transition team, I suspect that weapon selection is at the bottom of the stack.

[Erik]

It's all good, my friend.

"Of all the issues that face the DHS transition team, I suspect that weapon selection is at the bottom of the stack."

You've got that right. (I brought it up only to keep the conversation "gunny.")

;)

[Bahadur]

I wonder how the "service" element - processing permanent residency and naturalization applications, for example - of the INS will be affected.

Can someone offer an analytical response to the question?

[ahenry]

I wonder how the "service" element - processing permanent residency and naturalization applications, for example - of the INS will be affected.

In short, positively. In practice, who knows? To be brief (mainly ‘cause I don’t have the details in front of me) there are a number of congressional dictates that should impact the speed with which immigrants are dealt with. IIRC, there are several dates during the “transition” phase of the DHS, on which the “service side” of the INS will have to show specific steps taken that will improve its processing and its accessibility to immigrants. I’ll try to dig through my notes and get back to you, but as of right now, it appears to be a major step in the right direction (naysayer’s notwithstanding).

[Bahadur]

ahenry:
In short, positively. In practice, who knows? To be brief (mainly ‘cause I don’t have the details in front of me) there are a number of congressional dictates that should impact the speed with which immigrants are dealt with. IIRC, there are several dates during the “transition” phase of the DHS, on which the “service side” of the INS will have to show specific steps taken that will improve its processing and its accessibility to immigrants. I’ll try to dig through my notes and get back to you, but as of right now, it appears to be a major step in the right direction (naysayer’s notwithstanding).Interesting. My thanks for your reply. I await further details...

[ahenry]

The DHS is attempting to improve the flow of information as well as improve the efficiency of the immigration and naturalization process but as I keep saying, we’ll have to wait and see.

Part of the improvements as I see them are that under the new system there will be, 1) Required “inspection” of the system and process, as well as a required “response” to any recommendations within a specific timeframe. 2) One individual who reports directly to the undersecretary and whose main job description is finding the problems and making the recommendations to solve them (unfortunately somebody that does this job right puts themselves out of work, so...). 3) Combined agencies eliminate a lot of “cross work” that existed in the past. For example, in the past both Customs and INS could be working on the same exact investigation without knowing the other was doing so. Eliminating that should help with workload. 4) One “agency” whose sole function is immigration and naturalization processing. 5) Separate budgets for the two sides of immigration (enforcement and services). This was mainly an issue for the BP, but I think that splitting this will positively impact the “Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services” as well. There's more that is going on, but that is sort of the basics and should give an idea of what I'm getting at.


These are a couple of things that the new DHS has done (is doing/will do) that I think will have a net positive impact on immigrants. As we all know (none better than those that have immigrated here, like yourself) there is a long way to go in order to improve things for those attempting to become citizens legally. Nevertheless, as I have said for a long time, improving this side of things is a vital step. Whether this specific step turns out to be an actual improvement or nothing more than a shell game we will have to wait and see. I do think however, that there is a push from the top to make improvements in this arena. That in and of itself is a major improvement over the last administration.

[Bahadur]

ahenry:

Thanks for the information. One can only hope...

I attended one of Newt Gingrich's talks a while back, and he cited the INS as the prime example of bureaucratic inertia and technological inefficiency.

Things have changed a bit since then, I guess...