The Establishment of the Dhs Depends upon What Legal Action

Secretary Michael Chertoff took office on February 15, 2005 and launched a second review (2SR) to assess the department`s operations, policies and structures. More than 250 department members and 18 action teams are involved in these efforts. The teams also consulted with public and private partners at the federal, state, local, tribal and international levels. On July 13, 2005, Secretary Chertoff announced a six-point results-based program, which included a major reorganization of the department. As the department expands what it means to keep the country safe, DHS should reconsider its role in protecting personal data and privacy. As CAP has previously argued, Congress and the administration can do more to strengthen DHS`s current Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). These measures include clarifying the legal authority of the CRCL to ensure that it is involved in the policy development process from the outset, rather than being asked to respond or investigate once the policy has already been established; that the Agency respond to its recommendations in a timely manner; and more.86 In addition, this study recommends a broader policy role for DHS in protecting personal data and privacy. This would mean at least elevating the CRCL officer – while remaining operationally independent to oversee civil rights and civil liberties complaints – to the level of assistant secretary with a seat at the management table in order to be able to more directly influence agency-wide decision-making. The CRCL officer should direct and supervise relevant DHS offices, including the CRCL, the Privacy Office, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. A more ambitious approach would be to make personal data protection and privacy a core mission of DHS and to make DHS the primary federal agency for protecting the privacy of U.S.

citizens. To make the case for reform, this report first describes the legacy of DHS`s hasty creation and how previous attempts at DHS reform have failed to distract the department from a disproportionate focus on foreign threats. It then provides an analysis of DHS`s challenges, highlighting long-standing fundamental issues, including instances where the department is absent or not contributing. It also identifies opportunities to reform the factors that prevent DHS from providing maximum value to the nation. Second, the report reinvents what it means to keep America safe in today`s world and provides a new framework for aligning the department`s focus on new and emerging needs. It recommends that DHS adopt a new security and service model described above, focused on connecting, communicating, facilitating, onboarding and assisting, while recalibrating its focus on external threats by better balancing its focus on protection, security, prevention and law enforcement with its other priorities. Finally, this report suggests short- and long-term steps the current administration could take to realize this vision and create better value for the American people. DHS should maintain its primary goal of managing our air, land and sea borders in a safe, efficient and humane manner. CBP, under the umbrella of DHS, is responsible for functions ranging from counterterrorism to border security and trade and travel facilitation. ICE is responsible for enforcing immigration laws and investigating the illegal movement of people and goods. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is responsible for providing immigration services and benefits.

These agencies – particularly CBP and ICE – focus on the repressive aspects of their roles. But viewing immigration law violations, often civilian in nature, through a punitive lens has led to repression at the border and inland. It has also distorted the public`s perception of migrants, as well as the political debate over immigration policy, and marginalized DHS`s service component that encompasses the equally important mission of facilitating travel, trade, and the management of immigration services. In addition, the Border Patrol must compensate for a significant lack of trust in border communities, which has led to moral problems within the base and resistance to political change.72 Despite the consensus among policymakers that the department could be much more effective,7 there is little agreement on how to solve 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.