Understanding US citizenship and immigration services today requires a look at the historical arc of immigration bureaucracy in the United States. The functions currently performed by USCIS evolved over more than a century in response to shifting political, social, and economic forces.
Early Immigration Oversight
In the 19th century, immigration was largely unregulated at the federal level. States controlled their own ports of entry. However, the Immigration Act of 1891 established the first federal immigration agency—what would become the Immigration Bureau, housed in the Treasury Department and later transferred to the Department of Labor.
This era was marked by the opening of Ellis Island in 1892 and the growing concern about the economic and cultural impacts of mass migration. The bureaucracy focused heavily on inspection and exclusion—especially of those deemed “undesirable” based on race, health, or political beliefs.
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service
In 1933, immigration and naturalization functions merged into the INS, which operated under the Department of Justice. INS handled visas, citizenship, border enforcement, and deportations. For decades, this unified structure persisted, but it became overwhelmed as immigration surged and policy became more complex.
By the late 20th century, criticism mounted that enforcement and benefits functions were incompatible within the same agency.
Post-9/11 Restructuring: Birth of USCIS
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 led to the breakup of INS in response to the September 11 attacks. Immigration services were reorganized into three main entities within the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS):
USCIS – Responsible for adjudicating immigration and naturalization benefits.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – Enforcement, detention, and deportation.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – Border security and ports of entry.
This restructuring was meant to allow USCIS to focus solely on processing and service functions without the enforcement responsibilities that had previously caused conflict of interest and public distrust.
USCIS and Interagency Cooperation
Although USCIS is separate from ICE and CBP, the nature of immigration work requires significant interagency coordination across the federal government.
Department of State (DOS)
USCIS works closely with DOS, particularly for:
Consular Processing: Immigrant visa applications completed abroad must be initiated through USCIS (I-130, I-140), then transferred to the National Visa Center and U.S. embassies.
Refugee Admissions: DOS oversees the refugee pipeline, but USCIS officers conduct interviews and adjudicate eligibility.
Visas and Dual Review: USCIS decides on change of status applications from within the U.S., while DOS issues new visas abroad.
Department of Labor (DOL)
DOL plays a vital role in employment-based immigration:
Certifies that no qualified U.S. workers are available for the job (Labor Certification or PERM).
Enforces prevailing wage and working condition standards.
USCIS cannot approve many employment petitions (e.g., H-1B, EB-2) without certified DOL documents.
Department of Justice (DOJ) – Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
When USCIS denies an application for an individual without lawful status, the case often shifts to EOIR, which oversees immigration courts. USCIS also collaborates with DOJ on training and legal interpretations, though tension sometimes arises over differing administrative priorities.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Intelligence Agencies
USCIS relies on FBI and DHS systems for background checks, biometrics, and security vetting. These checks are essential in asylum, naturalization, and adjustment of status applications. Interoperability and data sharing between agencies are critical for national security.
USCIS’s Role in Shaping Immigration Narratives
Though USCIS is primarily an administrative body, it plays an underrated role in how immigration is perceived, narrated, and understood in the U.S. public consciousness.
Symbolism of Citizenship
The agency’s naturalization ceremonies—particularly those held on July 4 or at historic sites—serve as symbolic affirmations of the American immigrant identity. These events reinforce the message that immigrants are not outsiders but full participants in civic life.
The stories highlighted in USCIS public materials—about refugees rebuilding lives, Dreamers succeeding in school, or veterans gaining citizenship—help humanize the immigration process.
Political Manipulation and Media Narratives
USCIS policy shifts, especially around humanitarian programs or green card delays, often become political flashpoints. The agency has occasionally been drawn into partisan battles—for instance:
The Trump-era decision to remove “nation of immigrants” from the mission statement was widely seen as a symbolic break from traditional narratives.
Public outrage followed processing slowdowns and fee hikes, particularly for asylum and DACA applications.
These events show how the administrative actions of USCIS can influence broader public discourse around immigration, even when the agency itself avoids overt political engagement.
Discretion and Consistency in Adjudications
One of the more nuanced challenges facing USCIS is the tension between discretionary decision-making and procedural consistency.
Officer Discretion
Many immigration applications involve discretionary elements, such as:
Waivers for grounds of inadmissibility.
Good moral character determinations in naturalization.
Evaluations of “exceptional hardship” or “credible fear.”
This discretion allows officers to consider context and humanitarian factors. But it can also lead to subjective or inconsistent outcomes depending on the officer’s interpretation, workload, or even personal biases.
Variation Between Field Offices
USCIS has dozens of field offices across the country, and variation in processing times, approval rates, and adjudication standards is well-documented. For example, some offices have much higher rates of green card denials for marriage-based applications.
USCIS has attempted to standardize procedures via:
The online Policy Manual.
National Adjudicator’s Field Manuals.
Quality assurance reviews.
Still, disparity persists, and applicants often “forum shop” or adjust timing based on field office reputations.
Case Law and Judicial Influence on USCIS
While USCIS is an administrative agency, it is heavily influenced by federal court rulings that interpret immigration law.
Chevron Deference and Immigration
Under the legal principle of Chevron deference, courts historically deferred to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. This gave USCIS significant leeway in setting policies. However, the Supreme Court may curtail this doctrine in the coming years, which could increase judicial scrutiny of USCIS decisions.
Key Cases
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) – Limited the indefinite detention of immigrants, affecting removal cases tied to USCIS denials.
USCIS v. Regents of the University of California (2020) – Blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA, ruling that USCIS had acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judulang v. Holder (2011) – Highlighted due process concerns in discretionary decisions, indirectly shaping how USCIS handles waivers and removals.
These decisions highlight how immigration law is administrative, political, and constitutional, with USCIS at the intersection of all three.
USCIS in a Global Context
Immigration is a global phenomenon, and USCIS must adapt to rapid international developments:
Climate Migration
As climate change displaces people, new categories—such as climate refugees—may emerge. Although the U.S. legal system does not currently recognize environmental displacement as a basis for asylum, USCIS may eventually face pressure to adjudicate such claims or support international initiatives.
Pandemics and Global Health Crises
COVID-19 showed how pandemics can disrupt global migration. USCIS saw a massive drop in applications, leading to budget shortfalls and proposed furloughs. In future crises, the agency must have emergency funding and digital resilience to maintain critical operations.
Global Competition for Talent
Countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany are redesigning their immigration systems to attract global talent. USCIS must be nimble in adapting employment visa categories and processing pipelines to ensure the U.S. remains a destination for top talent.
Conclusion: The Enduring Significance of USCIS
Over five sections totaling more than 7,500 words, we have dissected U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from every angle—its structure, challenges, evolution, mission, and future. USCIS is more than a bureaucracy; it is a living institution that both reflects and shapes America’s identity.
Key takeaways:
USCIS’s origins lie in more than a century of evolving immigration policy and reflect America’s historical ambivalence toward newcomers.
It serves a multi-dimensional mission: gatekeeper of national security, engine of economic growth, and guardian of humanitarian principles.
The agency faces internal pressures (e.g., resource limitations, workforce morale) and external ones (politics, judicial rulings, public perception).
Its success will depend on modernization, legal reform, policy stability, and a renewed commitment to public service and transparency.
The future of USCIS is also the future of American immigration. Whether the nation chooses to expand, restrict, or reform its immigration system, the responsibility
