DHS regularly interacts with Americans and U.S. individuals and collects information about Americans and American individuals as part of its day-to-day duties. It screens and screens travelers, interacts with asylum seekers and would-be citizens, provides emergency assistance during natural and man-made disasters, and performs certain law enforcement functions, each resulting in the collection and storage of information about American individuals. DHS is responsible for protecting the information it acquires and protecting the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens and all individuals when authorizing the use of that information for other purposes. In addition to the information it collects and stores, DHS also plays an important role in ensuring the security of personal or private information from malicious cyber actors and foreign governments. Making the protection of civil liberties and privacy a core mission of DHS would fill a critical gap in leadership roles that is not currently fully filled by other departments and agencies. False and harmful misinformation about the security of the 2020 general election prompted millions of Americans to question the election results and led to a violent attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Though paralyzed by political leaders, some DHS officials have publicly assured the nation that there is “no evidence that any foreign adversary could have prevented Americans from voting or changing the vote count.” 63 These measures were crucial to maintaining the credibility of the elections. Going forward, DHS should continue to play an increasing role in communicating with the American public about threats, dispersing disinformation, and providing reliable information.
In this way, DHS can uniquely engage the private sector and the American people to protect the nation. Since DHS`s inception, challenges to the department`s fundamentals and operations have hampered its performance. Understanding these fundamental issues and why they have not been addressed effectively is key to formulating a new vision for DHS that focuses limited HQ attention on the right priorities. Understanding DHS`s capabilities today is critical to transforming the agency to better meet the unmet security needs of Americans, address problems that have arisen or have significantly worsened over the past four years, and focus attention on the department`s right priorities. Recalibrating DHS operations to the security and service model, consistent with recognizing and addressing threats that impede security and services, would create space for a new vision for DHS. The purpose of this course is to familiarize the student with the history, laws, and legal issues affecting the homeland security and security of the United States. In addition, this course will enable the student to analyze the types of legal issues from a Christian worldview. An overview of general DHS laws with a focus on emergency management, immigration, maritime law, and transportation safety. As a quick glance at a DHS organizational chart shows, the department is involved in a wide range of activities and coordinates a massive workforce of more than 240,000 federal employees.55 In the 20 years since its inception, DHS`s broad powers and short attention span have led to a drift in the mission.
56 DHS taking on new missions and developing new programs. that are not linked to an overall strategic objective. Meanwhile, with a few exceptions, DHS has not yet made progress in carrying out its core tasks. These include the protection of critical infrastructure, including electricity and election security; management of citizenship and immigration services; and the fight against terrorism. DHS also wastes energy competing for bureaucratic ground if it could solve problems. Recent examples include the years-long battle between DHS and the DOJ over which agency runs transnational organized crime; Tensions with the FBI and IC over foreign influence and election interference, roles and responsibilities;57 turf wars over cybersecurity jurisdiction between DHS CISA and the National Security Agency;58 and persistent questions about the direction and usefulness of the DHS intelligence unit. In the absence of a clear and well-defined mission, DHS has too often tried to make itself a useful actor on all issues, arguing that it has authority and capacity that others lack. Meanwhile, DHS is missing opportunities to meet needs that other departments and agencies cannot, and opportunities to lead where DHS`s unique strengths would be most effective in solving problems.
Going forward, DHS has an opportunity to focus on areas where it is the natural leader, where it does not duplicate work, and where it does not face bureaucratic headwinds, allowing it to focus on solving the problems that are at the heart of America`s security needs. Successive governments have continued to interpret DHS`s mission as focusing primarily on protecting the homeland from foreign threats. As a result, DHS has not invested in building its capacity to respond to limitless threats such as natural disasters and cyberattacks on government enterprises, and those such as the growing threat of white supremacist violence emanating from U.S. borders. Looking ahead, it is easy to imagine that DHS, with its critical infrastructure and emergency response capabilities, could contribute to the solution if determined to do so. DHS is expected to play a leading role in responding to all emergencies that threaten the safety of Americans, even though the response relies heavily on the expertise of other federal departments, such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the expertise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is critical to the pandemic response. In cases where specialized expertise is required, DHS can serve as an emergency quarterback, identifying resources and making them available to departments and agencies that need them. Going forward, DHS has the ability to focus on the most pressing threats, including domestic and borderless threats, in addition to ongoing global threats, and enhance the department`s ability to serve as an emergency quarterback for a broader range of national emergencies. Critics offer conflicting ideas about the sources of DHS`s challenges.
Some believe that long-standing fundamental problems have hampered DHS`s effectiveness as its missions and focus have expanded and changed. Others believe DHS is absent today and does not meet the security needs of Americans. And new evidence reveals other factors hampering DHS performance that have deteriorated significantly in recent years, highlighting additional challenges for DHS that should be addressed. Despite the consensus among decision-makers that the Department could be much more effective,7 there is little agreement on how to address the problem. Public debate is divided between those who call for the dissolution of the department or parts of it8 and those who argue that DHS needs more resources and responsibilities.9 Both approaches miss the point. Abolishing DHS and bringing its components back to where they came from is neither politically feasible nor wise, and giving DHS more resources and responsibilities without substantial changes will do little to address the department`s underlying problems. Reform of the agency — and decisions about its size and future remit — should not begin with a catalogue of DHS`s shortcomings, but with an analysis of America`s homeland security needs. It is important to ask the following questions: What should be the main objective of the department? What should DHS do and what would be better left to other departments and agencies, or better done by them? How has the Department`s mission changed since its inception? And how can DHS add value to the American people and those seeking safety or opportunity here? Eleven days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the governor of Pennsylvania at the time. Tom Ridge (right) was appointed the first director of the White House Office of Homeland Security and tasked with overseeing and coordinating a comprehensive national strategy to prevent future terrorist attacks on the country. [11] Although President George W. Bush initially believed that the federal government could better ensure the security of Americans with a strong Homeland Security Council led by the White House, 18.
In June 2002, he submitted his proposal to the United States House of Representatives. One of the department`s strongest supporters was Joe Lieberman, then a Democratic senator from Connecticut. The House of Representatives approved the original bill on July 26, but the Senate has been slower to consider the bill due to partisan claims of jurisdiction, parliamentary factors, and deliberations on some highly controversial issues.12 It was only after the November 2002 elections that Congress reconvened and passed a compromise bill.