Mary Ann Wyrsch Discusses the INS: Present and Future

January 25, 2001

On January 25, 2000, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Migration Policy Program hosted a breakfast briefing featuring Mary Ann Wyrsch, Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Wyrsch spoke about the recent activities of the INS during the transitional period and what challenges the next commissioner will face. Demetri Papademetriou, co-director of the International Migration Policy Program, was the moderator.

Demetri Papademetriou introduced Mary Ann Wyrsch and congratulated her on her work and the INS's first clean audit ever. Wyrsch opened by saying she would like to discuss where the INS is now, as it looks toward the appointment of a new commissioner and new attorney general, and what will be on the plate of the incoming political officers. As part of the presidential transition process, like the rest of the U.S. government, the INS is under a hiring and regulations freeze and is working to sort out its implications. Doris Meissner, the last commissioner, worked to professionalize the agency, which in previous administrations had been very politicized. That goal was particularly important given the tremendous growth of the INS over the last few years; in 1993 it had 17,000 to 18,000 people compared to the 33,000 it employs today.

Wyrsch then described some of the efforts she has been involved in since assuming the role of acting commissioner. Many of them are infrastructure and human resource issues that any administration must face. First, the INS received from the Inspector General a clean audit, which means they can account for where their money goes. Second, she has worked on information technology to improve INS management systems. Third, she has spent much time on budget issues. Due to increases in personnel, the INS has had a major increase in its budget but faces systemic problems, such as retirement costs. Fourth, the INS faces infrastructure and systems issues, such as integrating INS's two-print Ident system with the FBI's ten-print Ident system. Fifth, INS has spent a lot of time on reorganizing the detention system. INS has faced a major increase in the numbers of people in detention and was unprepared to manage that responsibility. There is now a new Director of Detention and Removals who is working to address some of the issues on detention.

Wyrsch proceeded to talk about other issues the new commissioner will face which have been raised in the last five or six months. Congress passed 20 new bills in its last session that require implementation of some sort by the INS; examples are the Data Management Improvement Act, the LIFE (Legal Immigration and Family Equity) Act, and the Trafficking Act. The INS is also looking at the daily needs of its large enforcement responsibilities and of hiring many more inspectors for expanding airports. Wyrsch and her colleagues have put together transition materials in which they have outlined activities in the following areas: border management, interior enforcement, immigration services, and infrastructure and professionalism.

In 2001, the INS must deal with a budget problem partly due to the fact that Congress appropriates new expenditures but does not "pay" for the infrastructure that will support these new activities. The agency has had to make approximately 20 percent reductions in many of its offices, because the cost of simply "doing business"--such as paying for electricity--has not been covered by its base funding. The agency has grown so much in terms of employees and work that it does not have the physical space to house staff and to process paperwork.

Wyrsch said the INS is focusing on key areas, such as keeping up its enforcement postures, dealing with its infrastructure issues, accommodating the requirements of new land and airports, and keeping its eye on detention centers. These will be some of the themes that affect the new budget. The Bush administration, working with the INS, is putting together a new budget proposal that will be put forward in about April.

The LIFE Act has created numerous near-term responsibilities for the INS; Wyrsch has been working with her staff to put together a team to implement the act. The agency has put out some regulations on the definition for asylum which will go forward. The INS also had a range of regulations--about 17--at the Federal Register, and Wyrsch thought that about four of those were affected by the incoming Administration's freeze on regulations.

Questions, Answers, Comments

• Larry Gonzalez, from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, asked for Wyrsch's thoughts on INS restructuring and on how the INS should implement Senator Feinstein's backlog reduction bill despite its lack of funds. Wyrsch responded first to the question of backlogs. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) had a provision in the H-1B legislation which requires the INS to report to Congress on what is needed to reduce the backlog of applications. Wyrsch said that the INS will report to Congress in February; she is not sure if the Bush budget will reflect the estimates that will be in the INS report. On the issue of restructuring, Wyrsch said that the Clinton administration proposed to separate the enforcement and service sections of the INS under one Commissioner. Other proposals had variations of that theme. President Bush has spoken about the need to separate the INS parts, but Wyrsch does not know how or what that would entail. Restructuring would take time; it would be a major change.
  

• Ralston Deffenbaugh with the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service expressed concern over the lack of access to habeas corpus for INS detainees under current U.S. law and other legal issues. He asked what Wyrsch thought about the idea of involving judicial officers in the detention process so that, like in criminal law, enforcement officers do not also make decisions such as how long to keep detainees. Under this proposal, a judicial officer would make decisions on the length of detention, bail, and other such issues, or at least act as a third party involved in the process. Wyrsch said she is not well informed enough to respond adequately. She added that, while there are some people who have been detained for a long time, the average length of detention is short; she could not really imagine another process.

• Christina DeConcini with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network mentioned that under former Commissioner Meissner a pilot project for an alternative detention program was successfully carried out in New York. She heard that the INS was planning to expand such alternative-to-detention programs and said that many NGOs were very interested and willing to help the INS. She asked how quickly these programs might be implemented? Wyrsch said she had been briefed on these programs and had asked people to put together some ideas. There is no timetable yet.

• Debbie Sanders from CAIR said she felt that district offices are not following the Pearson memo guidelines on detention released last year. She hopes that the new guidelines will clarify headquarters' policy and encourage the district offices to follow them. Wyrsch said that those guidelines are one of the regulations put on hold. Asylum, parole, and expedited removal officers are working to develop more uniform procedures and reporting activities. The INS does not take criticisms lightly, but Wyrsch thinks that many of the procedures they put in place address a number of concerns. Wyrsch said the other regulations under freeze are 1) an updated list of countries whose citizens are ineligible for transit without a visa, 2) some temporary status amendments to the requirements for employment authorization documents (EADs), 3) certificates for foreign health workers.

• Papademetriou raised the question: is the detention function something that perhaps the INS should consider shedding? Could it do so without damaging the rest of the agency's mandate? It could separate the administrators of immigration law from those in charge of detention.

• An immigration attorney suggested that to change the INS's priorities, one must change the law. Adjudicating claims is the agency's core function, and the rest spins off from that. If you deny a claim, you must remove the person as part of the core function. If one focuses on adjudicating claims, the rest of the agency's activities will improve. This may be an alternative to restructuring.

• Denyse Sabagh, an attorney in private practice, raised the problem of people losing their status due to backlogs in applications. She made three comments. First, adjudications are often done with the idea that people are not entitled to benefits. INS officers need to be trained to have a new mindset that they are providing a service and that most people should be approved. This would speed up the process. Second, the INS should start using electronic filing. It would decrease processing time and increase communication. Third, Sabagh noted that the State Department has had trouble getting information from the INS regarding certain types of visas, so a corporate or electronic database that both the INS and State Department can use may be helpful. Wyrsch answered that she does not know about the database idea; the INS already shares a lot of information with the State Department and has data-sharing arrangements with the Department. The INS is looking at and starting electronic filing whereby people abroad can pay their fees online. The front end of e-filing is not hard; it is easy to set up a web page. The problem is the back end; once someone applies, the information must go into a database to be processed. The current database is an old system that needs to be replaced. The INS is looking at overall changes in all systems, but they need an overall plan rather than a bunch of different systems. That's a long-term process that is underway; the question now is what changes the INS can make in the short-term that will not damage the long-term plan. The agency is committed to electronic filing but is unsure what to plug the front end into. On the training issue, the INS tries to do a lot of training; people in the service centers are among the most beleaguered people in the INS. The INS is working on customer service.

• Merril Smith with the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service mentioned a GAO report on expedited removal. It found that the INS relied on self-reporting, which is a biased method. In one center, 2 percent of people who were returned expressed a fear of persecution upon return. (Audience members from the GAO noted that the 2 percent statistic applied to one center and could not be applied to the U.S. as a whole.) Wyrsch said that in the near future the INS will put out guidelines on expanding access to secondary inspection, so that some NGOs can be involved, rather than just the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and a few media persons.

• Jean Butterfield thanked Wyrsch for continuing dialogue and being open to working with the NGO community. From the NGO perspective, there have been several waves of unfunded mandates from Congress for the INS since 1996, the LIFE Act being the latest. She suggested that the INS and NGOs work together to go to Congress and get funding. Wyrsch agreed.

• An audience member asked what restructuring would necessitate? Wyrsch said that political officers in the Bush administration should determine what they want, and the INS will work with them. She does not think there needs to be another commission to investigate restructuring. The government needs to make a decision and move on.

Summary by Kerry Boyd