Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g7rbq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T23:10:15.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Penetrability of Administrative Systems: Political “Casework” and Immigration Inspections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Janet A. Gilboy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To achieve institutional goals, public agencies commonly rely on the political support of interest groups, the executive, and the legislature. While much is written about public agency vulnerability to pressures from these sources, little is known about how influence and agency behavior are linked. This article provides an in-depth look at one agency's response to an important segment of its environment. Drawing on an empirical study of administrative discretion, the study explores the Immigration and Naturalization Service's dependence on the support of politicians and pragmatic response to their “casework” on behalf of constituents. The article highlights a neglected feature of the influence process—how it affects the behavior of front-line public officials, particularly through their anticipation of the possibility that there will or might be casework complaints. It describes the inspection context as understood by front-line immigration inspectors, the asymmetric risks posed to them by casework, and the strategies they “rationally” employ to deal with these risks—strategies that promote accommodation as well as responses based on the perceived power of violators. The article suggests that a lack of countervailing incentives in certain kinds of cases underlies a cultural-political environment of accommodation to outsiders.

Type
Context and Process in Court and Bureaucracy
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , 1992 , pp. 273 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Financial support for this study was generously provided by the National Science Foundation (SES-8911263) and the American Bar Foundation. I would like to express my great appreciation to the district administrators of the Immigration and Naturalization Service whose extensive cooperation and willingness to open their doors to scholarly research made this study of exclusion/admission decisionmaking possible. Their interest in this research provides us with a better understanding of the nature of government action within what is often a difficult environment of public purposes and private interests. I also am indebted to each of the inspectors working at the ports of entry studied; they kindly included me in their everyday activities and gave generously of their time to explain the nature of their work. I would like to thank Barry Boyer, Kitty Calavita, Terence Halliday, John R. Schmidt, and Peter H. Schuck for their indispensable commentary on earlier drafts of this paper, and Robert A. Kagan and Doris Meissner for their valuable insights relating to portions of this paper. Editor Frank Munger, Robert M. Emerson, and the anonymous reviewers of the Law & Society Review provided especially useful insights and advice for the final draft. Bette Sikes is to be thanked for energetically editing the article.

References

References

Aleinikoff, Thomas Alexander, & Martin, David A. (1991) Immigration: Process and Policy. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, & Baratz, Morton S. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Berke, Richard L. (1991) “Ethics Unit Singles out Cranston, Chides 4 Other in S. & L. Inquiry,” New York Times, 28 Feb., sec. A, p. 1, cols. 1–2.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty (1990) “Employer Sanctions Violations: Toward a Dialectical Model of White-Collar Crime,” 24 Law & Society Review 1041.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty (1992) Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S., New York: Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar
Clapp, Charles L. (1963) The Congressman: His Work as He Sees It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Clark, Joseph S. (1964) Congress: The Sapless Branch. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter B., & Wilson, James Q. (1961) “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations,” 6 Administrative Science Q. 129.Google Scholar
Cofer, Donna Price (1985) Judges, Bureaucrats, and the Question of Independence: A Study of the Social Security Administration Hearing Process. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Crenson, Matthew A. (1971) The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Nondecisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1969) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. (1979) “The Utility of State Legislative Casework as a Means of Oversight,” 4 Legislative Studies Q. 353.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. (1980) “State Legislative Casework and State Administrative Performance,” 12 Administration & Society 327.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M. (1969) Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M. (1991) “Case Processing and Interorganizational Knowledge: Detecting the ‘Real Reasons’ for Referrals,” 38 Social Problems 198.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M., & Paley, Blair (1992) “Organisational Horizons and Complaint-Filing,” in Hawkins, K., ed., The Uses of Discretion. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Evins, Joe Landon (1963) Understanding Congress. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1966) The Power of the Purse. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977) Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gellhorn, Walter (1966) When Americans Complain: Governmental Grievance Procedures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1987) “Setting Bail in Deportation Cases: The Role of Immigration Judges,” 24 San Diego Law Rev. 347.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1988) “Administrative Review in a System of Conflicting Values,” 13 Law & Social Inquiry 515.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1990) “Some Problems of Broad Delegation of Lawmaking Power: Reflections from an Empirical Study,” 18 Policy Studies J. 627.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1991) “Deciding Who Gets in: Decisionmaking by Immigration Inspectors,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 571.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1992) “Government Use of Private Resources in Law Enforcement.” Draft, June.Google Scholar
Gordon, Charles, & Mailman, Stanley (1990) Immigration Law and Procedure. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
Gormley, William T. Jr. (1989) Taming the Bureaucracy: Muscles, Prayers, and Other Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Kenneth E. (1969) “Congressional Interference in Administration,” in Elazar, D.J. et al., eds., Cooperation and Conflict: Readings in American Federalism. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.Google Scholar
Gruson, Lindsey (1991) “Senate Panel Finds No Evidence to Warrant Action on D'Amato,” New York Times, 3 Aug., p. 1, cols. 4–5.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review (1983) Note, Developments in the Law: “Immigration Policy and the Rights of Aliens,” 96 Harvard Law Rev. 1286.Google Scholar
Harwood, Edwin (1986) In Liberty's Shadow: Illegal Aliens and Immigration Law Enforcement. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford Univ.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith (1984) Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., Nelson, Robert L., & Salisbury, Robert H. (forthcoming) The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1990) “McNary Proposes Massive INS Reorganization,” 67 Interpreter Releases 605, May 25.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991a) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 12—Exclusion and Deportation,” 68 Interpreter Releases 265, Mar. 11.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991b) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 13—Exclusion and Deportation Grounds Continued,” 68 Interpreter Releases 305, Mar. 18.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991c) “Congress Probes INS Management amid Proposed Reorganization,” 68 Interpreter Releases 517, May 6.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991d) “State Dept. Implements Revised Exclusion Grounds,” 68 Interpreter Releases 677, June 3.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991e) “INS, State Dept. Add Countries to Visa Waiver Pilot Program Regulations,” 68 Interpreter Releases 1196, Sept. 16.Google Scholar
Johannes, John R. (1979) “Casework as a Technique of U.S. Congressional Oversight of the Executive,” 4 Legislative Studies Q. 325.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. (1978) Regulatory Justice: Implementing a Wage-Price Freeze. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Herbert (1960) The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret (1988) Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Lipsky, Michael (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. (1979) The End of Liberalism. 2d ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundman, Richard J. (1980) “Routine Police Arrest Practices: A Commonweal Perspective,” in Lundman, R. J., ed., Police Behavior: A Sociological Perspective. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, Grant (1966) Private Power and American Democracy. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Maggio, Michael (1988) Interview, Corporate Crime Reporter, p. 10 (21 Nov.).Google Scholar
Manley, John F. (1970) The Politics of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and Means. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Mann, Dean E. (1968) The Citizen and the Bureaucracy: Complaint-handling Procedures of Three California Legislators. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies.Google Scholar
Martin, David A. (1987) Major Issues in Immigration Law. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. (1983) Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Republic, New (1990) “Indecent Request,” New Republic, 9 April, p. 5.Google Scholar
Ogul, Morris S. (1976) Congress Oversees the Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Perrow, Charles (1972) Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, & Salancik, Gerald R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall B., & Franklin, Grace A. (1986) Policy Implementation and Bureaucracy. 2d ed. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Rourke, Francis E. (1976) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Saloma, John S. (1969) Congress and the New Politics. Boston: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Scholz, John T., & Wei, Feng Heng (1986) “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System,” 80 American Political Science Rev. 1249.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. (1972) “The Curious Case of the Indicted Meat Inspectors,” Harpers Mag., Sept., p. 81.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. (1975) The Judiciary Committees. The Ralph Nader Congress Project. New York: Grossman Publishers.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. (1983) Suing Government: Citizen Remedies for Official Wrongs. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. (1984) “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” 84 Columbia Law Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip (1957) Leadership in Administration. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Co.Google Scholar
Sofaer, Abraham D. (1972) “The Change-of-Status Adjudication: A Case Study of the Informal Agency Process,” 1 J. of Legal Studies 349.Google Scholar
Tacheron, Donald G., & Udall, Morris K. (1966) The Job of the Congressman. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.Google Scholar
Teitelbaum, Michael S. (1980) “Right versus Right: Immigration and Refugee Policy in the United States,” 59 Foreign Affairs 21.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1980) Department of Justice, Authorization and Oversight, 1981: Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office (1991) “Immigration Management: Strong Leadership and Management Reforms Needed to Address Serious Problems.” GAO/GGD-91-28. Gaithersburg, MD: General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
Van Vleck, William Cabell (1932) The Administrative Control of Aliens: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron (1971) “Budgetary Strategies of Administrative Agencies,” in Wolfinger, R. E., ed., Readings on Congress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (1989) Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 8 U.S.C. 1101 (1986).Google Scholar
Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–649, 8 U.S.C. 1101 (1991).Google Scholar

Case Cited

Matter of Kane, 15 I. & N. Dec. 258 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1975).Google Scholar