Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:37:37.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of “Third-Party” Involvement in Enforcement: The INS, Illegal Travelers, and International Airlines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 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 is part of a larger study about the factors shaping the exercise of discretion by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors. It focuses on an infrequently examined topic: how agency behavior is affected when government depends on private enterprise to help enforce legal requirements. My examination of the INS's relationship with international airlines reveals that airlines are part of a third-party liability system. Airlines are mandated by law to screen foreign travelers prior to transporting them to the United States, in order to ensure foreign travelers' admissibility to the country, as well as required to remove all inadmissible travelers at airline cost. The study shows how third-party liability requirements generate a complex system of exchange relations and dependence between the INS and international airlines, a system that affects in important ways how the INS handles the cases of suspected inadmissible travelers.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 1997 , pp. 505 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This article is drawn from a larger study of immigration inspection work supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-8911263) and the American Bar Foundation. The study would not have been possible without the extensive assistance of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I am deeply indebted to the Immigration Service District Director, whose personal interest and considerable efforts made this scholarly study possible. I also thank the Port Director, supervisors, and inspectors who generously gave of their time to help answer my numerous questions. Helpful comments on earlier drafts were received from anonymous reviewers and from John Braithwaite, William L. F. Felstiner, Gary T. Marx, John R. Schmidt, and Susan Shapiro. A very special word of appreciation goes to Robert M. Emerson whose many suggestions and valuable insights I have drawn on in preparing this article.

References

References

Bardach, Eugene, & Kagan, Robert A. (1982) Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Blumberg, Abraham S. (1976) “The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game: Organization Cooptation of a Profession,” in G. F. Cole, ed. Criminal Justice: Law and Politics. 2d ed. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty (1990) “Employer Sanctions Violations: Toward a Dialectical Model of White-Collar Crime,” 24 Law & Society Rev. 1041–69.Google Scholar
Chambers, David L. (1979) Making Fathers Pay: The Enforcement of Child Support. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cruz, Antonio (1994) Carriers Liability in the Member States of the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1969) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M. (1969) Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M. (1988) “Discrepant Models of Categorization in Social Control Decision-making.” Unpublished, Dept. of Sociology, UCLA.Google Scholar
Emerson, Robert M., & Paley, Blair (1992) “Organizational Horizons and Complaint-Filing,” in Hawkins, K., ed., The Uses of Discretion. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. (1979) The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1991) “Deciding Who Gets In: Decisionmaking by Immigration Inspectors,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 571–99.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1992) “Penetrability of Administrative Systems: Political ‘Casework’ and Immigration Inspections,” 26 Law & Society Rev. 273–314.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A.-(1995) “Regulatory and Administrative Agency Behavior: Accommodation, Amplification, and Assimilation,” 17 Law & Policy 3–22.Google Scholar
Gilboy, Janet A. (1996) “Social Regulation and Business Responsibility.” Presented at Law & Society Association Annual Meeting, Glasgow, Scotland (July).Google Scholar
Glaberson, William (1990) “I.R.S. Pursuit of Lawyers' Cash Clients Faces Tests,” New York Times, 9 Mar., sec. A, p. 1, cols. 2–4.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith (1984a) “Creating Cases in a Regulatory Agency,” 12 Urban Life 371–95.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Keith-(1984b) Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Steven A. (1990) “A Drug Dealer Finds Many Eager to Launder His Drug Money,” New York Times, 24 Jan., sec. A, p. 1, cols. 5–6.Google Scholar
Hutter, Bridget M. (1988) The Reasonable Arm of the Law? The Law Enforcement Procedures of Environmental Health Officers. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991a) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 12—Exclusion and Deportation,” 68 Interpreter Releases, pp. 265–73 (March 11).Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991b) “The Immigration Act of 1990 Analyzed: Part 13—Exclusion and Deportation Grounds Continued,” 68 Interpreter Releases, pp. 305–19 (March 18).Google Scholar
Interpreter Releases (1991c) “State Dept. Implements Revised Exclusion Grounds,” 68 Interpreter Releases, pp. 677–81 (June 3).Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. (1994) “Regulatory Enforcement,” in Rosenbloom, D. H. & Schwartz, R. D., eds., Handbook of Regulation and Administrative Law. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A., & Skolnick, Jerome H. (1993) “Banning Smoking: Compliance without Enforcement,” in Rabin, R. L. & Sugarman, S. D., eds., Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kraakman, Reinier H. (1986) “Gatekeepers: The Anatomy of a Third-Party Enforcement Strategy,” 2 J. of Law, Economics, & Organization 53–104.Google Scholar
Levi, Michael (1991) “Regulating Money Laundering: The Death of Bank Secrecy in the UK,” 31 British J. of Criminology 109–25.Google Scholar
Lipsky, Michael (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lome, Simon M. (1978) “The Corporate and Securities Adviser, the Public Interest, and Professional Ethics,” 76 Michigan Law Rev. 423–96.Google Scholar
Lowenfels, Lewis D. (1974) “Expanding Public Responsibilities of Securities Lawyers: An Analysis of the New Trend in Standard of Care and Priorities of Duties,” 74 Columbia Law Rev. 412–38.Google 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
Pfeffer, Jeffrey, & Salancik, Gerald R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Proper, Emberson Edward (1900) Colonial Immigration Laws: A Study of the Regulation of Immigration by the English Colonies in America. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Rolph, Elizabeth, & Robyn, Abby (1990) A Window on Immigration Reform: Implementing the Immigration Reform and Control Act in Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter (1972) “The Curious Case of the Indicted Meat Inspectors: Lambs to Slaughter,” 245 Harper's Mag., pp. 81–88 (Sept.).Google Scholar
Shellenbarger, Sue (1992) “Work and Family: Child-Support Rules Shake Parents, Firms,” Wall Street J., 20 Jan., sec B, p. 1, col. 1.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress (1951) Revision of the Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality Laws. Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. Washington: U.S. GPO.Google Scholar
Whitford, William C. (1979) “A Critique of the Consumer Credit Collection System,” 1979 Wisconsin Law Rev. 1047–1143.Google Scholar
Zellman, Gail L. (1990) “Child Abuse Reporting and Failure to Report among Mandated Reporters,” 5 J. of Interpersonal Violence 3–22.Google Scholar

Case

Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351 (C.D. Cal. 1982).Google Scholar

Statutes & Regulations

Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 5067, 8 U.S. C. 1182.Google Scholar
Fed. Reg. 1791 (22 Jan. 1988) (Proposed rule).Google Scholar
Fed. Reg. 100 (4 Jan. 1989) (Final rule).Google Scholar