INS Would Split in 2 Under Bush’s Plan

The Bush administration unveiled a major overhaul Wednesday of the Immigration and Naturalization Service designed to keep terrorists from entering the country while still welcoming lawful immigrants and visitors.

The plan, which would split the agency’s law enforcement and service operations into separate bureaus, culminates years of debate on breaking up the INS and comes amid widespread concerns that the agency is not up to the task of protecting the nation from foreign criminals.

The criticisms, while smoldering for years, intensified in the highly charged atmosphere following the terrorist strikes, in which at least four of the suspected airline hijackers appear to have been in the country illegally and no definitive records have been found for six others.

“The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 underscored in the most painful way for Americans that we need better control over individuals coming to our shores from other nations,” Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft said at a news conference. Noting that three of his grandparents migrated to the United States, he added: “We remain a nation committed to welcoming America’s friends from abroad, but we have a new determination not to see our welcome abused by America’s enemies.”

Under the plan, the agency would separate its roles as police officer and service provider. To improve law enforcement, the INS will establish a Bureau of Immigration Enforcement, combining the Border Patrol, investigation, inspection and intelligence operations, officials said. Separately, it will create a Bureau of Immigration Services for processing applications for permanent residence, political asylum, work permits, citizenship and other benefits.

INS district and regional offices struggle to fulfill all of those missions, officials said Wednesday. The hodgepodge of duties has left officials with a muddled mission and an inefficient chain of command, leading to red-tape snafus and an often-frustrated public.

Complicating matters, the INS has scrambled to keep up with a historic wave of immigration and helter-skelter growth of its own organization. The agency’s $4.8-billion budget represents a 220% increase from 1993, while its work force has almost doubled, to 34,000 from 18,000. Although the terrorist attacks have skewed the national debate toward issues of security, the INS record of serving lawful immigrants has been a longtime source of complaints. Indeed, members of Congress often say their constituents have more gripes about the INS than any other federal agency.

“The INS is suffering from mission overload,” said Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee on immigration. The unrelenting flow of immigrants, he added in a recent statement, “is beyond the capacity of the INS to process and monitor.”

The new INS structure would phase out the existing arrangement of regional and district headquarters and replace it with a new network of area and local offices. INS officials said the reorganization was not intended as a downsizing and in fact it could add 522 positions overall.

Management experts cautioned that restructuring alone may not be sufficient to turn around an agency as institutionally troubled as the INS. Regular audits and investigations have found that some INS offices lack basic tools, such as workable computers and meaningful coordination among departments.

“Restructuring may address some of the management challenges that we found,” said Richard M. Stana, director of justice issues for the General Accounting Office, “but the INS still faces significant challenges assembling the basic building blocks that any organization needs.”

The INS annually inspects more than 500 million arrivals. Screening out potential terrorists and other criminals is a daunting task; pressured officers must rely on imperfect tools such as reviews of documents and checks against law enforcement databases.

Stung by the criticisms about poor service, INS officials Wednesday said they would establish an Office of Customer Relations to “provide quick and fair resolution” of complaints and that the reorganized INS would push for “consistent, courteous, accurate and timely service.”

But if the INS overhaul seemed an attempt to fix what many see as the agency’s bifurcated mission--keeping out and deporting undesirable foreigners while assisting those deemed worthy of U.S. residence and citizenship--members of Congress said Wednesday that they want to go further.

A proposal by Gekas and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also would split up the INS enforcement and service functions. But unlike the White House approach, the congressional proposal would abolish the INS and make both the law enforcement and service functions subordinate to a newly created authority in the Justice Department.

The House plan remains in the proposal stage, and passage in its current form remains uncertain.

INS Commissioner James Ziglar said Wednesday that the administration would start its restructuring “immediately,” although it would not be completed before the 2003 fiscal year. Much of the plan can move forward without legislation, officials said, although the full plan envisions $100 million from Congress.

But INS critics remained wary. “Quite simply, it does not go far enough for the rescue mission that is needed,” Sensenbrenner said of the Bush plan.

Others were less measured in their response: Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) complained that the plan would be a superficial reorganization “that will preserve INS, change the name plates on its office doors and continue the monumental failures of the past.”

“We can’t tolerate botched immigration enforcement and poor service any longer,” Rogers said. “This agency has to be dissolved and its two core missions split into separate agencies. It will take legislation to do it.”

Such a prospect, however, troubles immigration advocates who have long worried that law enforcement would win the contest for resources in any INS breakup plan. They lavished praise Wednesday on the administration plan, which they described as a welcome alternative to the more drastic proposals for splitting up the agency.

Specifically, pro-immigrant forces were pleased that the plan left someone with authority to oversee services.

“If someone is in charge of service, they’re going to be held accountable for good service,” said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a leading pro-immigrant group.