Doris Meissner

Meeting Report  

"The Immigration and Naturalization Service
and Homeland Security"

Doris Meissner, former Commissioner of the INS.

On September 19, 2002,  Doris Meissner, former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service addressed the Whitman Domestic Studies Seminar group at the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, DC. The speech and subsequent question and answer period dealt with the INS, issues facing the agency as it evolves post-9/11 and how the agency is reorganizing to prepare for the new Department of Homeland Security.

Anne Whitman, who was President Eisenhower's personal secretary for twelve years, generously provided an endowment to the Eisenhower Institute to study how effectively agencies of the federal government are fulfilling their mandates. The monthly lunch seminars, which are the first product of the Whitman Domestic Studies Program, feature prominent speakers who have extensive experience in various aspects of homeland security.

Background on Immigration

In her introduction,  Meissner noted that the history of immigration in the United States has been very uneven, marked by a few distinct high periods of influx:

1. Colonial Period
2. 19th century and the opening of the West
3. Post Civil War to 1914
4. Present day
   

The current heavy influx of immigrants began in the 1970s and reached its height in the 1990s. In one decade more than 10 million people immigrated to the United States. According to the 2000 census, 1in 9 Americans are foreign born. Additionally, the composition of the immigrant population is different than at any time in the past. Prior to the 1970s, the vast majority of immigrants were of European descent; now %80-%85 are Asian or Latin American. This dramatic shift in the composition of immigrant groups has had a significant economic and political impact.  Meissner added that the flow of immigrants shows no sign of abatement in the coming decades.

As a result of the immigration flood of the past thirty-odd years, the demographics of the nation's cities are changing. According to the 2000 census, California, the largest, most populous state in the country has a majority of what are currently considered minority populations. Texas, Florida and New York will soon follow. Additionally, there has been an unprecedented dispersal of immigrants to many states around the country that have not had experience with immigration for the last 100 years. The rate of growth of immigrant populations in some Southern and Midwest states has been far more dramatic than the traditional focal points of immigration like New York and California. Clearly, immigration and the face of the country is changing. Terrorism is not the only factor to consider when re-organizing the INS. Changes must be made that take into consideration the large numbers of immigrants and high costs of immigration services today.

Immigration and Security after September 11

In the wake of 9/11, the desire for increased border and visa security combined with unprecedented rates of immigration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is experiencing one of the classic tensions in a democracy: the struggle between civil liberties and security.

The effort to reconcile civil liberties and security is exemplified in the first piece of legislation passed by Congress after 9/11: the USA Patriot Act. This act was tied up in Congress for almost six weeks over issues of tightening immigration controls. The debate focused on the right of the Federal Government to indefinitely detain immigrants without due process, the convening of military tribunals for civilians, secret trials and secret evidence. This debate continues today, with no clear end in sight.

The fight over the Patriot Act illustrates the conflict between individual rights and liberties and what our domestic security requires - or as Doris Meissner puts it, what we collectively perceive it requires.

Clearly, 9/11 demonstrated the need to take actions that tighten the issuance of visas and create more reliable controls and administration of immigration law. Simultaneously, the flow and sharing of information amongst Federal agencies must improve. As Meissner observed no matter how good intelligence is, if it's in the wrong hands or disseminated improperly, an intelligence failure may result.

The state of play in immigration security is that we are searching for a new balance between liberties and security, but we are in a fluid period, more so than any of the other issues pertaining to domestic security. This is to be expected.

However, in the wake of 9/11 there have not been widespread calls to close the doors to this country. There has been a slow-down in the issuance of visas, but that is due to procedural depth.

Immigration has not been shut down because Americans understand the distinction between immigrants and terrorists. Immigration is not the enemy.

Reorganizing the INS for Homeland Security

Reorganizing the INS to function as a component of the Department of Homeland Security will be a difficult task. The INS must experience a paradigm shift - a sweeping change in the way in which information, intelligence and procedures are shared.

The INS has two primary functions:

1. Services: Providing visa applications, naturalization services and immigration assistance to both immigrants and American citizens.
2. Security and Enforcement: Border control, trafficking, criminal interdiction and other law enforcement responsibilities.

As the push to create a new Department of Homeland Security evolves there has been an effort to divide the workload at the INS so that enforcement and services are spilt into two divisions. Additionally, lawmakers have proposed that the INS will indeed be broken in to two separate agencies within the nascent Department of Homeland Security; however, debate still continues as to whether the agency should be split into two separate organizations or remain under the aegis of one commissioner.

According to  Meissner two competing positions have emerged regarding the reorganization of INS.

1. The first group advocates consolidating all agencies responsible for border control: customs, airport and border patrol and INS inspectors in one, separate organization that at some future date will be an integrated force.
2. The second position agrees with Senator Lieberman and the Kennedy-Brownback legislation that proposes a fifth box - a fifth undersecretary as Director for Immigration Affairs who would oversee the totality of INS functions; divided by enforcement and service. This view focuses on the long-term plans for the INS.

Meissner acknowledged that both concepts have very strong pros and cons, especially because it is proving so difficult to separate functions from an organization as large and bureaucratic as the INS. The two functions of the agency require different organizational cultures and have different constituencies and training. Also, the INS grew very quickly in the 1990's to keep pace with the rapid increase in the immigrant population of the United States. This, along with an increase in mandates for the agency has made it imperative that the two functions of the agency be split.

Separating INS services from security functions such as border control may prove risky for security. Services such as visa and work authorization are critical components of the security framework and as such, go hand-in hand with more overt security like border control. Separating the two functions could prove difficult and dangerous to the integrity of the organization and it's ability to perform its mandate. Disconnects between the groups responsible for enforcement and the groups responsible for providing visas and controlling the flow of immigrants and visitors could result in intelligence and border control failures. This important factor element blurs the line at which the INS would be split and continues the debate.

During the question and answer period that follower her presentation, Meissner was asked about the state of visa applications since 9/11. The attendee mentioned that in response to the terrorist attacks; the visa process has become too tough for the ordinary citizen to deal with. As a result, fewer people are coming to this country to study and work.

The visa issue is a difficult one. Meissner acknowledged that the visa process has undergone a change since 9/11 and a more careful, deliberate system has been put in place. However, the slow-down in the process is again due to systemic inefficiencies that arise from the fact that the State Department visa process was not designed to handle the change in procedures. Moreover, consular officers around the world are being more cautious in response to the sacking of the head of Consular Affairs.  Meissner states that the tools to change the current system have to come from a reorganization of how information and intelligence is shared amongst officials.

A seminar participant asked Meissner to comment on the efficacy of placing Americans under a single identification system: a national ID card, as it were.

Meissner responded that the cost and procedures of keeping such a large database current are prohibitive. The most significant flaw in a national ID card system are the localities themselves. Each state and some municipalities have different laws and regulations governing the issuance of birth certificates. Since all identification begins with this vital document, national standards would have to be put in place in order to begin a unified database; that effort too, is costly - perhaps even cost prohibitive.

Operational improvement of the agency, its services and its organizational structure is imperative. At the same time, these very issues have become hard to manage. The most pressing question is not what to do, but how to do it. A coherent, workable framework is needed to implement the changes necessary to prevent intelligence failures and safeguard our borders while keeping civil liberties intact. The struggle between security and civil liberty is played out every day in the INS and encapsulates the difficulties and challenges involved in developing a homeland security strategy and a new department.

Meeting Report by Josh Kolchins

Return to top of page.