{
  "id": "RL31997",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31997",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101667,
      "date": "2003-07-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-08T14:41:24.460544",
      "title": "Authority to Enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in the Wake of the Homeland Security Act: Legal Issues",
      "summary": "For decades, the administrative authority to interpret, implement, enforce, and adjudicate\nimmigration law within the U.S. lay almost exclusively with one officer: the Attorney General. The\nmost general statement of this power was found in Section 103(a)(1) of the Immigration and\nNationality Act of 1952 (INA), the statute that comprehensively regulates immigration law in the\nUnited States. With the transfer of nearly all immigration functions to the Department of Homeland\nSecurity on March 1, 2003, however, Section 103(a)(1) of the INA has necessarily required various\nmodifications to clarify the respective authorities newly obtained by the Secretary of Homeland\nSecurity and retained by the Attorney General. Accordingly, Section 103(a)(1) of the INA has been\namended twice, and now places primary responsibility for enforcing and administering immigration\nlaw in the United States with the Secretary of Homeland Security. \n  Section 103(a)(1) as amended, however, still apparently allows the Attorney General to retain\na significant amount of authority to enforce, administer, and interpret immigration law. The extent\nof the Attorney General's authority has become highly contentious in the wake of several events,\nincluding (1) the enforcement of immigration laws by the DOJ's Federal Bureau of Investigation\neven after all immigration enforcement functions were effectively removed from the DOJ, (2) DOJ's\nissuance of immigration-related regulations on February 28, 2002, the day before the abolishment\nof the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and (3) the Attorney General's ruling in  In re\nD-J-,\nRespondent . Considerable cooperation between the two Departments in addition to\ncongressional\nmeasures to clarify the INA, such as the Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003\n( H.R. 1416 ), may be in order to resolve the complexities presented by the substantial\ntransformation. This report will be updated as warranted.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL31997",
          "sha1": "1795b6904f2ac528f814588d30c65b46f219e8b0",
          "filename": "files/20030716_RL31997_1795b6904f2ac528f814588d30c65b46f219e8b0.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31997",
          "sha1": "6732c8334e4b286028f19d916a1ef5483a49452e",
          "filename": "files/20030716_RL31997_6732c8334e4b286028f19d916a1ef5483a49452e.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Immigration Policy"
  ]
}