Morality Within the State DecisionMaking in the US Asylum System

How frontline bureaucrats respond when institutional mandates conflict with deeply held professional and moral commitmentsMany US asylum officers entered their profession because they wanted to provide safety for people in need. On the job, however, they find themselves constantly trying to reconcile competing demands arising from the law, professional norms, and moral convictions. In Morality Within the State, Talia Shiff explores how these frontline bureaucrats navigate moral dilemmas when implementing laws. Drawing on interviews with asylum officers, policy documents, legal decisions, and agency materials, Shiff develops a new framework for understanding moral conflict in organizational life. She identifies three forms of moral incongruence that shape decision-makin routinized work and the erosion of meaningful engagement; tensions between legal classifications and moral judgments of deservingness; and conflicts between institutional directives and moral commitments. Shiff shows that asylum officers respond to these moral dilemmas by reinterpreting legal categories, redefining professional identities, and renegotiating their relationship to the institutions they serve. They do more than implement policy; they participate in the ongoing construction of organizational practices and institutional legitimacy. Although her research specifically examines US asylum officers and their work before the second Trump administration, Shiff’s account helps us understand how frontline workers with institutional mandates that conflict with moral obligations—including in healthcare, education, policing, and welfare administration—shape the state.