Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-08T01:41:23.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deciding WHO Gets in: Decisionmaking by Immigration Inspectors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

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

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines the work of immigration inspectors—the front-line gatekeepers at ports of entry to the United States who decide whether foreign nationals should be admitted to the country. Described are the shared categories primary inspectors use that help define travelers as referable or nonreferable for further intensive questioning. The study discusses how these judgments arise in the course of doing a distinctive organizational task that fundamentally shapes their character. The study explores the ways in which the nature of categorization and practical decisionmaking in the setting are shaped by agency concerns and the responsibilities and problems of this set of social control agents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , 1991 , pp. 571 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This research was generously supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-8911263) and the American Bar Foundation. I am extremely grateful to the Immigration and Naturalization Service administrators whose interest and extensive cooperation made the study possible. I am indebted to each of the District and Port administrators, supervisors, senior officers, and inspectors who facilitated the research by giving generously of their time, energetically including me in their daily work, and showing considerable patience in helping me understand immigration inspection work from their point of view. I also would like to thank Robert M. Emerson, whose insightful comments and unpublished manuscript greatly aided the preparation of this article. For valuable criticisms and suggestions I am grateful to Michael Churgin, Robert Dingwall, William L. F. Felstiner, Keith Hawkins, Arthur J. Lurigio, Peter Manning, Loretta J. Stalans, Diane Vaughn, Robert Worden, four anonymous reviewers, and Editor Shari Diamond. Finally, John Schmidt provided both insights and invaluable editing skills to help whittle the article into shape.

References

ALEINIKOFF, Thomas Alexander, and David A., MARTIN (1991) Immigration: Process and Policy. Interim 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
ANKER, Deborah E. (1990) “Determining Asylum Claims in the United States: An Empirical Study of the Adjudication of Asylum Claims Before the Immigration Court” (Executive Summary), 2 International Journal of Refugee Law 252.Google Scholar
BLACK, Donald J. (1971) “The Social Organization of Arrest,” 23 Stanford Law Review 1087.Google Scholar
CARROLL, John S., and Pamela A., BURKE (1990) “Evaluation and Prediction in Expert Parole Decisions,” 17 Criminal Justice and Behavior 315.Google Scholar
CARROLL, John S., WIENER, Richard L., COATES, Dan, GALEGHER, Jolene, and James J., ALIBRIO (1982) “Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Prediction in Parole Decision Making,” 17 Law & Society Review 199.Google Scholar
COOPER, J., and R. T., CROYLE (1984) “Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in Rosenzweig, M. R. and Porter, L. W. (eds.), 35 Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, CA:.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CREWDSON, John (1983) The Tarnished Door: The New Immigrants and the Transformation of America. New York: New York Times Book Co.Google Scholar
DAVIS, Kenneth Culp (1969) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, Shari Seidman (1990) “Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates,” 15 Law and Social Inquiry 191.Google Scholar
DINGWALL, Robert, and Topsy, MURRAY (1983) “Categorization in Accident Departments: ‘Good’ Patients, ‘Bad’ Patients and ‘Children’,” 5 Sociology of Health and Illness 127.Google Scholar
EMERSON, Robert M. (1969) Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
EMERSON, Robert M. (1983) “Holistic Effects in Social Control Decisionmaking,” 17 Law & Society Review 425.Google Scholar
EMERSON, Robert M. (1988) “Discrepant Models of Categorization in Social Control Decision-making” (draft, September 1988).Google Scholar
EMERSON, Robert M., and Melvin, POLLNER (1976) “Dirty Work Designations: Their Features and Consequences in a Psychiatric Setting,” 23 Social Problems 243.Google Scholar
FISKE, Susan T., NEUBERG, Steven L., BEATTIE, Ann E., and Sandra, MILLER (1987) “Category-based and Attribute-based Reactions to Others: Some Informational Conditions of Stereotyping and Individuating Processes,” 23 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 339.Google Scholar
GALANTER, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Review 95.Google Scholar
GOFFMAN, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
HAWKINS, Keith (1983) “Assessing Evil,” 23 British Journal of Criminology 101.Google Scholar
HAWKINS, Keith (1984) Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HENSLIN, James M. (1968) “Trust and the Cab Driver,” in Truzzi, M. (ed.), Sociology and Everyday Life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
HUGHES, David (1980a) “The Ambulance Journey as an Information Generating Process,” 2 Sociology of Health and Illness 115.Google Scholar
HUGHES, D. (1980b) “Lay Assessment of Clinical Seriousness: Practical Decision-making by Non-medical Staff in a Hospital Casualty Department (Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Swansea).Google Scholar
HUGHES, Everett C. (1958) Men and Their Work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
HUTTER, Bridget M. (1986) “An Inspector Calls: The Importance of Proactive Enforcement in the Regulatory Context,” 26 British Journal of Criminology 114.Google Scholar
INTERPRETER RELEASES (1991a) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 12—Exclusion and Deportation,” Interpreter Releases, 11 March.Google Scholar
INTERPRETER RELEASES (1991b) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 13—Exclusion and Deportation Grounds Continued,” Interpreter Releases, 18 March.Google Scholar
KAUFMAN, Herbert (1960) The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
KNAPP, Will S. (1981) “On the Validity of Accounts About Everyday Life,” 29 (N.S.) Sociological Review 543.Google Scholar
KOULISH, Robert E. (1991) “The Board of Immigration Appeals: Administrative Review Power Unleashed” (presented at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting).Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, and O'BARR, William M. (1979) “The Social Significance of Speech in the Courtroom,” in Giles, H. and Clair, R. N. St. (eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
LLOYD-BOSTOCK, Sally (1991) “The Psychology of Routine Discretion: British Factory Inspectors' Responses to Accidents” (draft paper).Google Scholar
LURIGIO, Arthur J., and John S., CARROLL (1985) “Probation Officers' Schemata of Offenders: Context, Development, and Impact on Treatment Decisions,” 48 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1112.Google Scholar
LURIGIO, Arthur J., and Loretta J., STALANS (1990) “Thinking More About How Criminal Justice Decision Makers Think,” 17 Criminal Justice and Behavior 260.Google Scholar
McGINLEY, Laurie, “International Travelers Face Summer of Extra-long Delays at U.S. Airports,” Wall Street Journal, 22 May 1991, B1.Google Scholar
MARTIN, David A. (1987) Major Issues in Immigration Law. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
NOVOTNY, Ann (1971) Strangers at the Door: Ellis Island, Castle Garden and the Great Migration to America. Riverside, CT: Chatham Press.Google Scholar
ROTH, Julius A. (1963) Timetables: Structuring the Passage of Time in Hospital Treatment and Other Careers. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.Google Scholar
SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW (1978) “Consular Discretion in the Immigrant Visa-issuing Process,” 16 San Diego Law Review 87.Google Scholar
SCHAFFER, David R. (1985) “The Defendant's Testimony,” in Kassin, S. M. and Wrightsman, L. S. (eds.), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
SCHEFF, Thomas J. (1964) “The Societal Reaction to Deviance: Ascriptive Elements in the Psychiatric Screening of Mental Patients in a Midwestern State,” 11 Social Problems 401.Google Scholar
SCHUCK, Peter H. (1984) “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” 84 Columbia Law Review 1.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome H. (1975) Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
STAR, Jack (1972) “You Hide, They Seek: Customs at O'Hare,” Chicago Tribune Magazine, 19 November 1972, 64.Google Scholar
STROM, Stephanie (1991) “Stricter Screening by Immigration Procedures Produces Long Lines at Kennedy,” New York Times (Metropolitan News), 15 June 1991, p. 25, cols. 2–5.Google Scholar
SUDNOW, David (1965) “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office,” 12 Social Problems 255.Google Scholar
SWIGERT, Victoria Lynn, and Ronald A., FARRELL (1977) “Normal Homicides and the Law,” 42 American Sociological Review 16.Google Scholar
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (1991) “International Trade: Easing Foreign Visitors' Arrivals at U.S. Airports.” GAO/NSIAD-91-6. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office (March).Google Scholar
VAN VLECK, William C. (1932) The Administrative Control of Aliens: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
WAEGEL, William B. (1981) “Case Routinization in Investigative Police Work,” 28 Social Problems 263.Google Scholar
WILLIAMS, Linda Meyer, and Ronald A., FARRELL (1990) “Legal Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Day Care,” 17 Criminal Justice and Behavior 284.Google Scholar