Talk:United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Restored some changes
Hello, I put back some paragraphs that were removed. They concerned the name changes and also level of efficency of the USCIS/BCIS/INS. I believe that these are relevent, worth mentioning, and reflect the on-going changes since Sept 11th in US Government. Also, I believe concerns regarding agencys performance are accurate, well known, and not a reflection of a bias or represent a hidden motive.
If people disagree (or agree!) I'd love to discuss it further. I'm kind of new to Wikipedia so I hope this is the correct way to do things!
Regards, Nycmstar 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
--- Hey there - I had removed it the paragraph the first time because it was a bit imprecise. I've taken another shot at modifying the language to make it more accurate.
Most importantly, USCIS is not the same as the old INS; it is only a piece of what INS used to be responsible for. The considerable enforcement functions, which include the Border Patrol, the Inspections Program, the Investigations Program, the Intelligence Program, the Detention and Removal Program, and the General Counsel, were transferred to different agencies within DHS (ICE and CBP). Therefore, it cannot be said that the INS was transformed into USCIS - the INS was actually abolished and its functions distributed among three new agencies of which USCIS is only one. Also, the use of "BCIS" is outdated, the agency should only be referred to as USCIS. In terms of nomenclature, DHS is a Department; USCIS is an agency (not the other way around).
INS' ineffectiveness is indeed generally accepted and could be included. However the reason shouldn't be attributed solely to "not screening applicants," though clearly that was one manifestation of the agency's (many) woes.in spanish
Hi there, Updated the new USCIS director information to reflect the new director Alejandro Mayorkas and removed the acting director Jock Straffon (sp?)
Recent changes and a few questions
First, let me mention that I recently added a small section "USCIS Funding" to the page and included a couple of references. If someone has objections and/or comments related to this, please discuss them here.
Second, I have a few thoughts about the page in general:
1) I find it a little strange that there were no references on the page until now. Should the reference section perhaps be expanded?
2) Some minor comments regarding the statements describing the goals of USCIS.
For example: "The priorities of the USCIS are to promote national security, to eliminate immigration case backlogs, and improve customer services."
I am not sure if these are really their priorities. And are there other priorities, such as, for example, assisting family reunification and helping the U.S. businesses and the economy? Perhaps one should say instead "The stated priorities of the USCIS are..." or something like that. Do they mention anything about their priorities somewhere on their website?
My own experience with USCIS indicates that protecting national security (or at least how they perceive it) seems to be their overriding priority, which by supercedes by far all the other considerations, such as family reunification, economic growth, etc.
The same applies to the sentence "While core immigration benefits functions remain the same as under the INS, a new goal is to process applications efficiently and effectively." Is this really "a new goal" for them?
My understanding is that the main functional difference with INS is that some INS enforcement functions were taken away from USCIS ang given to ICE. (Maybe this should be mentioned explicitly?)
3) A small comment regarding the "Functions" section.
Is it really appropriate to list procedural requirements for naturalization (5 years, 3 years, 180 days etc) here? They seem a bit out of place in this section.
Regards, Nsk92 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Contact USCIS Citations
Tagging of Citations and Expansion
I went ahead and added the tags for citation and expansion. This artcile severly lacks the quality needed for an article on behalf of an agency of the US Federal Government. Comparing this article to other agencies within Homeland Security, it falls short. It has been a long time since the concerns regarding citaion were brought up, so I believed it appropriate to cite. Alex (talk)
Two articles referent at the same US Federeal Goverment Agency??
INS must be redirect at USCIS because now is the Official name UNITES STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE and add at the official name former INS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yayoloco (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The functions of the former INS are now divided between US Citizenship and Immigration Services, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and US Customs and Border Protection. As there are now three successor bodies to the INS, I believe that your proposed redirection would be misleading. --Jules7484 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)