The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Back in December, Law Street Media explained who then-Secretary of Homeland Security nominee John Kelly was. Only a few months after the inauguration, Kelly has since shifted jobs and replaced Reince Priebus as the chief of staff under President Donald Trump.

Kelly wasted no time making moves on his first day in office, firing Anthony Scaramucci from his communications director post after only 10 days on the job. He was reportedly outraged by Scaramucci’s profanity-laced interview with the New Yorker and found it embarrassing for the president, according to the Washington Post.

The ousting signaled that Trump may be willing to give more power to Kelly than Priebus had during his entire six-month stint in the White House.

“General Kelly has the full authority to operate within the White House, and all staff will report to him,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s chief of staff change is yet another example of him doing the same thing he had previously criticized Obama for doing. While Obama had three chiefs of staff during his eight years, Trump is already on his second in just six months.

3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can’t manage to pass his agenda.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2012

Kelly is known in the political world for his no-nonsense approach to leadership. The former 45-year military veteran from Boston served in the previous administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

His new appointment comes as the White House shifts to push Trump’s stagnant agenda, specifically in regards to taxes. The president wants Kelly and other administration officials to help focus lawmakers and citizens on passing tax cuts, which was a key part of his domestic agenda while on the campaign.

According to reports from inside the White House, people are already responding well to Kelly in his new role.

“He’s an adult and a disciplinarian,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser, to the Washington Post. “He walks in with respect. I don’t think people will go to war with him.”

During his brief stint leading Homeland Security, Kelly pursued a couple of projects, including Trump’s much discussed border wall with Mexico. Kelly called the proposed wall “essential” and vowed that construction on it would begin “by the end of summer,” though that doesn’t seem to be happening. He also stressed concerns over potential terrorist attacks on transportation, and said that if people knew the truth they would “never leave the house.”

While his position atop the Department of Homeland Security was relatively calm, Kelly is now entering a new, chaotic environment inside the West Wing. With weekly firings, constant leaks to the press, and conflicting statements from officials, Kelly will have his hands full balancing Trump, his aides, and other leaders. As a seasoned veteran, Kelly has experience leading groups, but wrangling this group of Washington outsiders–many of whom have unstable temperaments–will be a whole new challenge.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kelly: From General to DHS to the White House appeared first on Law Street.

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

John Kelly, a retired Marine General and 45-year military veteran, will head the Department of Homeland Security under President-elect Trump, CBS News reported on Wednesday. An official announcement is expected in the next few days. Kelly, 66, most recently served in the Obama Administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Kelly did not endorse Trump during the campaign. But he is a widely respected veteran with a deep resume, including experience with many countries the U.S. has had conflicts with over the past four decades, including Iraq and Afghanistan. He has also served as the special assistant to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s supreme allied commander for Europe, and served as an aide to former defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates.

Kelly, known for his blunt demeanor, called domestic politics a “cesspool” in an interview with Foreign Policy magazine last summer. Though he said he would be willing to serve either Trump or Hillary Clinton, he said neither was “serious yet about the issues,” and expressed his dislike of campaign rhetoric. Kelly is the third general chosen for Trump’s cabinet, following Michael Flynn as national security advisor and James Mattis as defense secretary. A fourth general, David Petraeus, is a candidate for the secretary of state position.

As the head of DHS, a body that was enacted to combat terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Kelly will be charged with carrying out Trump’s vision in regard to illegal immigration. Like Trump, Kelly has said that the U.S.-Mexico border is porous, and is a vulnerable channel for drugs and weapons to pass through. Kelly has not supported Trump’s hardline stance on Muslims, however, saying U.S. troops “respect and even fight for the right of your neighbor to venerate any God he or she damn well pleases.”

He also has a fierce respect for the military, and has personal experience with the sacrifices service members make: Kelly’s oldest son Robert was killed while fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2010. Days after his son’s death, Kelly delivered an impassioned speech in St. Louis. “Their struggle is your struggle,” he said, referring to U.S. soldiers. “If anyone thinks you can somehow thank them for their service, and not support the cause for which they fight—our country—these people are lying to themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is John Kelly? appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week. Our top stories include Texas A&M’s use of technology in legal education, President Obama’s historic sexual assault bill, and the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration mistake.

1. 7 Ways Texas A&M is Using the Digital Era to Change Legal Education

Chocolate and sea salt, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, legal education and technology…these are all pairings that at first glance don’t seem like they mix together too well, but truly are the perfect combinations. And while legal education has traditionally been a field that hasn’t necessarily embraced the latest offerings in technology, one school in particular has broken away from the pack, and has begun offering innovative programs to students that embrace the power of technology. Texas A&M University School of Law has designed four programs–an LL.M. in Risk Management, an M.Jur in Risk Management, an LL.M in Wealth Management, and an M.Jur in Wealth Management–that use technology to bring innovative legal education to both lawyers and non-lawyers looking to expand their educations and skill sets. Read the full article here.

2. President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law

On Friday October 7 President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized. Read the full article here.

3. How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants?

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama is set to face the gauntlet as the Supreme Court gears up to hear a case that challenges the President’s use of executive power, has the potential to wreck havoc on the 2016 Presidential election, and may go beyond judicial power by granting states more rights and control than the national government on a notoriously federally controlled area of law and politics–immigration. Twenty-six states are challenging the President’s executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making.

To date, the case is scheduled to be resolved by the court in June 2016 as the Supreme Court issued that it would review the case, thereby granting the President the authority to execute the programs prior to leaving office, should he be victorious. Read on to learn more about the executive actions in question, the procedural posture and legal history of the case, and what it all could mean for U.S. citizens and aliens in the future.

DAPA and DACA: The Troublesome Two

On November 20, 2014, an executive order was issued expanding the rights of individuals within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and introduced the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children relief from deportation so long as specific criteria are met. These criteria include: 1) must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; 2) must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16; 3) must show continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 until the present; 4) entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) or fell out of a lawful visa status before June 15, 2012; 5) were physically present in the U.S. when applying for consideration of deferred action; 6) are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces; 7) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors; and 8) do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Initially, DACA was available for a period of two years at a time–meaning that individuals were only granted temporary relief for two years before they had to re-apply and be approved by the government again. DACA also included a work authorization for those approved, but the executive action of 2014 made it and the work authorization renewable in three-year increments. Additionally, the requirement that the individual be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012 or now no longer applies. The new DACA provisions do not discriminate against those currently over 31 years old. Further, the eligibility cut-off date was moved from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. Anyone applying must show physical presence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 and during the time of application.

DAPA, unlike DACA, did not have a predecessor. Under DAPA, individuals that have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may obtain relief from removal should they meet the following criteria: 1) as of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a citizen or LPR; 2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since or before January 1, 2010; 3) are physically present in the U.S. as of November 20, 2014 and during their application for consideration; 4) have no lawful status as of November 20, 2014; 5) are not an enforcement priority; and 5) present no additional factors that would deem the granting of their application inappropriate.

Deferred action is an administrative mechanism used by the U.S. government to de-prioritize individual cases for removal for “humanitarian reasons, administrative convenience, or in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission.” It is a way for the government to categorize the urgency with which individuals be removed from the country. Generally speaking, deferred action carries great discretion. It can be terminated at any point should the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deem termination appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, receiving DACA or DAPA does not provide legal status, a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway to obtain a green card, but rather permits for an individual to be legally present within the U.S. for a specified period of time. In order to be a valid permission, deferred action applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis and do not apply as all-inclusive or sweeping legal policies. An application process is required and permission must be granted for an individual to continue to stay within the U.S.

Substantive rights, immigration status, and pathways to citizenship are under the control of Congress. Only Congress can confer such rights and policies upon individuals within the confines of the U.S. However, the Executive Branch has the authority to set forth policies under prosecutorial discretion and deferred action so long as they fall within the framework of existing law.

The 26 states named in the lawsuit are greatly dissatisfied by the way that President Obama has taken to resolving the many pitfalls of current immigration policy and justice. A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule.

Additionally, while immigration is an issue controlled by federal law, the states fear that the changes made to federal immigration laws will place a great burden on the states to change their laws and be forced to provide services they are unable or unwilling to provide to individuals lacking legal status. Specifically, some states worry that the quasi-legal status and work authorizations will require the states to provide “state-subsidized driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance.”

Image Courtesy Of [Nevele Otseog via Flickr]

History of Legal Action: The Procedural Posture

Shortly after President Obama’s executive action on November 20, 2014, the highly publicized Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, challenged the action on behalf of Arizona in a case called Arpaio v. Obama. Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed by the Washington, D.C. federal court and upheld unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 14, 2015. That decision has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following in Sheriff Arpaio’s footsteps, 17 states filed a lawsuit, with 9 states joining thereafter, challenging President Obama in Texas v. United States. The President held the support of 15 states and D.C., who filed “friend of the court” briefs on his behalf. Ultimately, the Texas federal court blocked President Obama’s initiatives on a procedural basis on February 16, 2015. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen found that Texas had standing, or legal capacity and authority, to sue and that the President did not comply with the requirements of the APA, particularly the requisite need for notice-and-comment. It rationalized that the changes enacted by President Obama were substantive rules rather than simple alterations to existing and general policy, which required a specific procedural process.

The Department of Justice subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision and argued the case in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2015. In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, 2-1. The majority decision, authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, found that Texas did, in fact, have standing to sue and that the changes to policy would greatly increase state costs and burden the states with additional processes and services as required by the national law. While it recognized that judicial review was unavailable under the APA in matters pertaining to agency discretion, it noted that the changes made to DACA and DAPA required notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore, were non-discretionary. Further, the court ruled on an issue unaddressed by the district court and found that the President’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was misguided and inaccurate because it vested great authority to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This indirectly re-classified the specified classifications of immigrants codified in the INA and those petitioning to enter, all in violation of the Act itself.

Judge Carolyn King of the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt dissent, ultimately stating, “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Further, Judge King argued that the case should have been dismissed as it follows prosecutorial discretion and therefore, not subject to review by federal courts. In criticism of her colleagues, she penned that allowing states to dictate national policy, particularly in areas solely within federal control, would be a great intrusion to the long-standing separations between government and state. Judge King added that the President’s executive actions were matters of general policy not subject to notice-and-comment procedure and that the interpretation of law under the INA actually sought to further the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”

Critics of the decision, including Judge King herself, highlighted the fact that the expedited appeal was anything but, as the Fifth Circuit took a very long time to render an opinion, likely in an effort to place the case under review by the Supreme Court after the conclusion of President Obama’s term in office.

The Petition Filed by the Department of Justice

In a writ of certiorari petition filed on November 20, 2015, exactly one year from the President’s executive actions, the Department of Justice sought review of U.S. v. Texas by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a decision as to whether it will review the case or not, the petition outlined key elements of President Obama’s argument demanding for review of this extremely crucial issue.

The DOJ Claims Valid Authority for Action Over States

The Department of Justice highlighted that the authority to make any and all immigration laws and policies is vested in the federal government, particularly under the control of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who hold authority to establish regulations pertaining to removal and admissibility rules. The Department has broad discretion over enforcement of immigration laws and the ability to prioritize which offenses or conduct deems immediate removal and which groups are not the top priority of government funds allocated for removal and enforcement. While 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States, the Department can only remove approximately 4 percent of those individuals within a given year. Congress has granted the Department $1.6 billion to remove those convicted of deportable crimes, thereby committing to the Secretary’s discretion in handling these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, prioritizing is of utmost importance to best allocate funding.

Additionally, the Department emphasized that continued presence through deferred action does not violate any criminal laws, as removal and inadmissibility under immigration laws is civil in nature. Deferred action has been an “exercise in administrative discretion,” that can be revoked at any point in time. It does not offer any legal status to those that fall within its classification. What is offered under deferred action, however, is work authorization protecting such individuals from exploitation under U.S. labor laws, subjecting them to taxation, Social Security, and welfare payments, and providing them with a way to make ends meet so they do not become a burden on U.S. citizens and society. Only “qualified” aliens are entitled to public benefits provided by the state in which they reside, and individuals lawfully allowed to stay within the U.S. under deferred action status are not deemed “qualified,” therefore, they are not entitled to public benefits unless their state specifically provides those under its own laws.

The Sticking Points: Substantive Arguments Against the States

Deferred action has been utilized in a variety of ways to grant individuals lawful presence in the U.S. Examples include individuals who petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and individuals whose lawful family members were killed on September 11, 2001 or in combat were granted temporary relief from deportation under deferred action. Decisions made based on deferred action have legally and historically been barred from judicial review.

Key elements of the petition included the Secretary’s discretion in enforcing immigration laws under resource constraints, the historical utilization of deferred action and its revocability, the security and economic interests in paying fees and applying for work authorization, and the effect that the divided Court of Appeals decision could have on the States’ ability to “frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”

The petition discussed the lack of standing or authority by the states to bring the lawsuit, stating that private parties lack any “judicially cognizable interest” in the enforcement of immigration laws that are not threatened by prosecution, nor do collateral consequences of federal immigration policy grant a state standing to bring suit. Further, the Department of Justice noted that even if the states were able to show standing to sue, they would have to identify injury resulting from the specified policy that affects it in an “individual way.” Such an expansive reading of state standing would open a door for many more federal-state disputes in the long run and give states far-reaching and independent authority to challenge federal laws with more regularity.

The government further argued that the states lack a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the Act does not allow suit by every individual “suffering an injury in fact,” and strictly limits the scope of judicial review to those who are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Additionally, the government noted that the agency’s discretion in deferred action is not reviewable by the courts as there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

An entire section of the petition offered examples of the Secretary’s authority to implement deferred action without challenge due to the long-standing history and nation of this power. Ultimately, the Department of Justice pointed to the authority vested in the Secretary to implement the executive actions as lawful within the scope of his power. Finally, the petition outlines the reasoning for why the deferred action is not subject to notice-and-comment rule-making as required by the APA because the actions were “general statements of policy” exempt from such procedural requirements.

What Could It All Mean?

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision, great authority would be vested onto the states over a historically federal issue, making it inexplicably difficult to pass any immigration laws on a national level. It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run. Further, it could ultimately punish the individuals that gained temporary lawful relief under the 2012 DACA provisions that have never been challenged by any of the 26 states in question. The decisions spanning over the last year could potentially invalidate the 2012 DACA actions as well.

While the importance of review is undoubtedly clear, from an administrative law aspect, a constitutional law aspect, as well as a separation of powers aspect, it is unclear exactly what the fruit of review will be. If history were any indication, President Obama would be victorious in his challenge. However, the lower courts have addressed key issues that fall squarely within the context of interpretation and interestingly added some of their own issues, which remain undecided by the district court. How the Supreme Court reads and interprets the statutes in question, as well as its analysis of the interworkings of several federal laws will be determinative for its decision. This may ultimately be a case about procedure and the process of implementation rather than power and constitutionality of law.

Resources

Primary

United States of America v. Texas: Writ of Certiorari

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who are Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

Additional

Politico: Obama Administration Takes Immigration Battle to Supreme Court

Politico: SCOTUS Keeps Obama Immigration Case on Track For Ruling by Summer

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: 5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule Making

Immigration Equality: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

 The Atlantic: A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration

 The New York Times: Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

American Immigration Council: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

 National Public Radio (NPR): Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Obama’s Immigration Actions

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federal Government’s Immigration Showdown: SCOTUS Will Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Rivers from Texas to Illinois have flooded as a severe storm system moves through the Midwest. There have been numerous flood related deaths in Missouri and Illinois; many of these deaths were related to drivers being trapped in their cars as the flood waters rose. The Midwest is currently recuperating during a brief reprieve from rain but Southern states have begun preparations for massive flooding. Thousands of people have been displaced by the evacuation process, seeking shelter in hotels or with family members while their homes are claimed by the rising water. The Midwest is usually hit by flooding hardest in the spring and summer, and was expecting snow during December rather than rain. Whereas summer floods are easily contained and property damage is often minimal, the winter flooding has been catastrophic. Read on for a look inside the disaster relief process that has swung into action over the past few weeks.

FEMA and El Nino

Earlier in December, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) organized a specialized El Nino task force to tackle the oncoming weather phenomenon. FEMA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinating efforts between regional, state and federal relief teams. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

An El Nino is a weather phenomenon in which warmer tropical Pacific Ocean waters cause changes to the global atmospheric circulation, resulting in a wide range of changes to global weather. Over North America, the Pacific jet stream (a river of air that flows west to east) often expands eastward and shifts southward during El Nino, which makes precipitation more likely to occur across the southern tier of the United States.

El Nino is also responsible for the nationwide temperature spikes that have made this winter season relatively mild for most of the Eastern seaboard. The current El Nino moving through the Midwest is the strongest since 1998. El Nino’s impacts do not only impact the Western hemisphere. According to BBC News,

Aid agencies like Oxfam are worried that the impacts of the continuing El Nino in 2016 will add to existing stresses such as the wars in Syria, South Sudan and Yemen. They say that food shortages are likely to peak in Southern Africa in February with Malawi estimating that almost three million people will require humanitarian assistance before March. Drought and erratic rains have affected two million people across Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. More floods are expected in Central America in January.

Weather services provide FEMA with consistent updates on El Nino weather patterns, information which FEMA then uses to design response plans for individual states and regions. FEMA coordinates with regional and federal officials to manage disaster response and evacuation. After Governor Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and deployed the National Guard in Missouri, he spoke with President Obama to discuss federal aid and intervention. According to a recent NASA report, the El Nino pattern is not waning and will continue to hit the country with significant force in the coming week. NASA satellites have tracked sea surface heights and temperatures over the past several weeks and will continue to work with disaster relief teams throughout the duration of the floods.

The History of FEMA

FEMA was founded in 1979, created via an executive order by President Carter. The federal government had completed informal disaster relief for domestic weather emergencies since the 1930s but the establishment of FEMA merged multiple agencies and marked an official commitment to aiding communities. In 2003, FEMA became part of the Department of Homeland Security, largely as a result of 9/11. According to FEMA’s website,

The agency coordinated its activities with the newly formed Office of Homeland Security, and FEMA’s Office of National Preparedness was given responsibility for helping to ensure that the nation’s first responders were trained and equipped to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Within months, the terrorist attacks of Sept.11th focused the agency on issues of national preparedness and homeland security, and tested the agency in unprecedented ways. Billions of dollars of new funding were directed to FEMA to help communities face the threat of terrorism. Just a few years past its 20th anniversary, FEMA was actively directing its ‘all-hazards’ approach to disasters toward homeland security issues.

But in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA was criticized for a number of reasons. Critics claimed that the evacuation process was not coordinated well enough and the number of supplies set aside for evacuees was not sufficient. Attempts to ensure that the process was running smoothly were in some cases interpreted as massive mistakes that slowed down the relief process on purpose. FEMA was considered to be uncoordinated on the ground, and images of New Orleans’ citizens baking in the heat of the SuperDome became synonymous with an ineffective FEMA response.

Hurricane Katrina was FEMA’s first massive challenge after becoming part of the Department of Homeland Security and was considered an embarrassment both for the agency and the Bush administration as a whole. FEMA director Michael Brown was considered by some to be insufficiently experienced in disaster management, although he claims that he did not have access to a great deal of information on the ground until days after evacuation began. The difficulties of Katrina evacuation and aid were not solely FEMA’s but the agency became the poster child for bureaucratic inefficiency.

The Difficulties of the Current Evacuation

As evacuation orders went into effect across the region, escaping the oncoming surge was made difficult because of compromised transportation routes. Interstates flooded, forcing travelers onto local roads that quickly became jammed. Trucks transporting commodities along set driving routes got stuck on the flooded roads and drivers were forced to abandon their cargo as the waters rise. Police forces and volunteers have been adding sandbags to major roads in preparation for flooding but the effects of these preventative measures have been minimal as multiple levees have broken across the region. Evacuees are forced to abandon their cars on the road, often after waiting on the roofs of their vehicles for hours for rescue teams. The majority of businesses and buildings have shut down during the floods, essentially turning several counties in Missouri and Illinois into ghost towns. People who tried to stay in their homes to wait out the flood found themselves fleeing to higher stories to escape more than water–untreated sewage filled the water of towns in Missouri and thousands of people were left without access to drinking water. In agricultural areas, pigs, horses and other livestock are often casualties of massive flooding. U.S. News reported yesterday that:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it is not planning to open a southeastern Missouri floodway in response to the swollen Mississippi River – at least not yet.

Opening floodways to divert the flow of water is one solution to local flooding but it will likely not be significant enough to impact the whole state. When flooding occurs this heavily over such a wide stretch of land, there is no easy solution. Even if water can be diverted out of certain communities, it would be held by levees that may be incapable of successfully containing the rivers, endangering other towns further downstream. The activation of the National Guard should provide extra manpower and resources for evacuation efforts but as long as the El Nino weather pattern persists, the flooding will continue in full force. Without an end to the incessant rain and flooding, conditions will likely only worsen in the Midwest and South.

 Conclusion

The flooding in the Midwest presents a daunting challenge for rescue teams across the country, but if FEMA has learned from Hurricane Katrina, it will tackle it efficiently and quickly. Evacuation is a challenging process that requires dozens of teams to coordinate transportation and rescue efforts during any time of year, but winter weather conditions make the task Herculean. Flooding is only expected to increase and expand to the South in the coming days. As FEMA, the National Guard and various regional officials coordinate their efforts, thousands of residents await aid as their homes sink deeper and deeper under the flooded rivers. If handled correctly, these floods may redeem FEMA’s public image and create a functional template for future evacuation scenarios. If handled poorly, these floods may cement FEMA’s reputation as ineffective and disorganized in the face of tragedy.

Resources

Primary

FEMA: About the Agency: A New Mission: Homeland Security

Additional

ABC News: 22 Dead, 2 Missing in Record Flooding Across Midwest

Reuters: Midwest Braces for More Flooding as Rain-swollen Rivers Rise

Eastern Arizona Courier: FEMA preparing for possible El Nino disasters

Scientific American: Record Flooding Hits U.S. Midwest, Threatens South

PBS News Hour: FEMA Faces Intense Scrutiny

BBC News: El Nino Weather: Worries Grow over Humanitarian Impact

US News: The Latest: Flooding Forces Closure of 3 Historic Sites in Illinois Because of Unsafe Roads

Hexa News: Missouri Residents Told To Evacuate Immediately Due To Flood Danger

NBC News: ‘Historic’ Floods Threaten 19 Levees Along Mississippi River

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Flooding in the Midwest: The Challenges of Disaster Relief appeared first on Law Street.

The Transportation Security Administration agents recently failed 67 out of 70 total tests, missing 95 percent of the of mock explosives and weapons that were smuggled into airports by undercover Homeland Security Red Teams, ABC News Reported.

Since the administration’s last review in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security spent $540 million on checked baggage screening and $11 million to train Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. Despite these expenditures, ABC news notes that the TSA has “failed to make any noticeable improvements in that time.” Professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart further reviewed homeland security expenditures using a cost-benefit analysis. They conclude, based on the costs of security and the financial damages of potential attacks, American spending has not produced the necessary results.

The failed airport security tests come at the worst possible time for the TSA. In the past couple months, we have witnessed multiple breaches in airport security. In April, a teenager snuck into a wheel well on an airplane leaving from the West Coast and flew all the way to Hawaii. In late May, a man was able to bypass airport security at LAX, only to be subdued by a TSA officer with a taser as he reached gate 66.

Last August, a woman was able to board a plane in San Jose without a ticket. The woman made it all the way to her destination before being arrested by police, who later determined that the she suffered from a mental illness.

After news of the recent Red Team tests emerged, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said,

Changes will be made in response to the identification of the vulnerable aspects by these tests.

According to the ABC News report, one undercover agent was actually stopped after setting off the alarm at the magnetometer, but after a pat down, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives taped to the undercover agent’s back.

The question now becomes, what new security measures will be enacted by the TSA, and will these new measures be any more effective?  The TSA recently started testing electronic devices traveling to and from overseas cities at many U.S. airports with direct international flights. The new rule will require passengers to power on their devices when arriving at security checkpoints for overseas flights. If the device will not power on, it will not be allowed past airport security checkpoints.

Many passengers feel this does not adequately address all the security concerns as it is only being implemented in select airports and does not address the problem of passengers smuggling bombs and weapons on their bodies, which TSA agents failed to detect in the mock testing. In 2014, the TSA  confiscated 2,212 firearms at 24 airports after screening nearly 653 million passengers, a 22 percent increase from 2013 where only 1,813 firearms were confiscated.

With external security threats remaining high according to terrorism experts, it is imperative to keep internal security at its best. Homeland Security has used Red Teams for the last 13 years to detect security flaws; however, the changes never seem to address the problems accurately. NBC News notes that since 2002, TSA agents failed similar Red Team tests on several occasions, indicating that there are many existing security flaws yet to be addressed.

NBC recently learned that 270 TSA security badges went missing at the San Diego International Airport over the last two years. These missing badges would allow non-Homeland Security personnel to gain access to restricted locations within the airport. As of March 2015, the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta saw more than 1,400 badges go missing over a similar time period.

How are we supposed to trust TSA agents with our lives when they can not be trusted with their own badges? Unless the TSA is able to completely restructure the airport security system, it is unlikely that new changes will make a large enough difference to deal with existing security threats.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the TSA Really Keep You Safe? appeared first on Law Street.

Given that they spend a large amount of time checking passengers and throw away a number of passengers’ personal items, should airport transportation security officers have a hard time finding weapons? With an annual budget of $7 million, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials believe that they set the standard for excellence in transportation security. According to ABC News, after an internal investigation with the Department of Homeland Security red teams, reports have shown otherwise. In fact, the results were so shocking that it led to the resignation of the head of the department.

Red team agents posed as passengers and conducted a series of tests to see just how secure this system really is. TSA agents did not pass 67 out of 70 tests, failing to find several mock weapons and explosives. Homeland Security discovered that the TSA fails to stop fake weapons or explosives from being smuggled through security checkpoints 95 percent of the time at some of our nation’s busiest airports. One red team investigator was stopped after setting off a magnetometer. Shockingly, after a pat-down, TSA agents still failed to find the fake explosive device taped to the investigator’s back. Frustrated by these results Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security Secretary, set out immediately for a detailed briefing at the TSA Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. DHS officials stated,

Secretary Johnson immediately directed TSA to implement a series of actions several of which are now in place, to address the issues raised in the report.

Melvin Carraway, the head of the TSA, resigned from his position as the acting administrator upon hearing these reports. He was appointed to this position in January of 2015 and was a veteran of the TSA for 11 years, holding many positions within the organization. Carraway was reassigned to serve in the Office of State and Local Law Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. There doesn’t appear to have been official word from Carraway on why he has resigned yet. Mark Hatfield will be his replacement until a new acting administrator is appointed. In regards to how the TSA will be dealt with moving forward, Johnson stated,

We take these findings very seriously in our continued effort to test, measure and enhance our capabilities and techniques as threats evolve.

Unnamed officials spoken to by ABC News admitted that these results were disappointing. Government officials claim that because red team agents are familiar with TSA procedures these results are not realistic and they are able to get past security in ways that terrorists could not. The TSA requires every passenger to go through various security checks before boarding a plane. Many believe that this process is nothing but an unnecessary and insulting ritual that does not protect anyone’s safety. It seems as if the TSA is more concerned with throwing away harmless personal items than finding weapons that threaten the lives of others.

The @TSA may not be able to find any bombs, but they sure as hell can find my shampoo..

— Larry Kraus (@lsk0334) June 2, 2015

The TSA has been failing to detect mock weapons for years and studies like this spark concerns that airline security is no safer than it was during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With very few improvements, TSA has to figure out how to change their security procedures and stop these incidents from occurring.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Acting Head of the TSA Resigns After Shocking Test Results appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk over the potential shutdown of a crucial government agency–the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But for a lot of Americans, exactly what DHS does isn’t really known. What would the effects of shutting it down be, and how could it affect daily life in the United States? Read on to learn about DHS’s inception, history, functions, and the current debate in Congress over its future.

What is the Department of Homeland Security?

DHS is a department under the Executive Branch of the Government. As a result, the Department reports to the President of the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security was created just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when Tom Ridge was appointed to serve as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. However, it was not considered to be an independent office until November 2002, when the Homeland Security Act passed Congress. The first day of business for the new office was March 1, 2003.

The DHS states its mission as follows:

The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

Since then the Department has evolved due to acts of Congress or through actions made by its leadership. Often these changes have been made with the intention of streamlining how DHS deals with various areas of national security.

Why did 9/11 spark the creation of DHS?

On September 11, 2001, 19 members of a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda took control of four United States passenger airplane flights and pointed them at various locations inside America. The targets of the first two flights were the Twin Towers located in New York City. The target of the third flight was the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The target of the fourth flight has not been determined, but many believe that the aircraft was aimed at the White House; however, the plane did not reach its target because it was forced down in a field located in western Pennsylvania. Between the four aircraft and their targets, roughly three thousand people died that day. The video below briefly shows what happened on the fateful day.

Prior to 9/11, an attack on American soil had been virtually unthinkable. The U.S. responded in part by creating the DHS to address the new challenges of terrorism and security in a changing global environment.

What is the Homeland Security Act?

The Homeland Security Act was a bill sponsored by former Congressman Richard Armey (R-TX) to create a department that could fulfill a threefold primary mission:

(A) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

(B) Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and

(C) Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.

Who runs DHS?

The Department is overseen by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Currently that position is held by Jeh Johnson, who was appointed by President Obama in 2013. Prior to Johnson, the Homeland Security secretaries were Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano, although James Loy and Rand Beers also served in acting capacities. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a member of the President’s cabinet, and is 18th in the order of Presidential succession.

What kind of a budget does the Department of Homeland Security run on?

DHS is funded by taxpayers, and granted its budget by the United States Congress. For fiscal year 2015, the Department of Homeland Security requested $38.2 billion from Congress. The funding request to Congress was increased to forty one billion, two hundred million dollars for fiscal year 2016.

What does the Department of Homeland Security do?

DHS is involved in a number of initiatives, which cover a wide scope. The big four are known by the acronyms FRG, HSARPA, CSD, and RDP. There are also two other areas, known as SAFECOM and the Blue Campaign. Read on for more information about each of these initiatives.

First Responders Group

The First Responders Group (FRG) is a group of many programs that deal with First Response–or the government reaction to any sort of catastrophe such as the 9/11 terror attacks. The programs run by FRGs range from implementing First Responder training, to improving public safety, to conducting research into technology to help prevent or protect the public and those who are involved in dealing with disasters. One example is the website FirstResponder.gov. The purpose of this website is to keep all information on First Response in one place.

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

HSARPA is a group of different programs that aim to protect America’s borders, be they land or sea, from a range of threats. These threats can include chemical, cyber, biological, or conventional explosives. An example of the steps undertaken by HSARPA is the Air Cargo Program, which aims to develop better technology to check luggage for any signs of explosives.

Cyber Security Division

The Cyber Security Division is a branch of HSARPA that deals specifically with cyber threats to America. As it is a branch and not a standalone program, it includes a smaller group of programs. One of the biggest of which is the Rio Grande Valley System’s Analysis Project, which aims to help with the environmental and immigration challenges that are presented by the Rio Grande Valley.

Research and Development Partnerships Group

The Research and Development Partnerships Group is a newer branch of DHS, created in 2010. This group focuses on working with 30 other laboratories around the country focused on keeping America safe. An example of what RDP does is the Disaster Assessment at Harbors and Ports: The Unmanned Port Security Vessel project. The aim of this project is build a ship that functions like a drone to patrol U.S. ports for signs of danger.

SAFECOM

SAFECOM is a program that is designed to help to develop safer communication lines, be it improving already existing methods of communication, or helping to create new methods. One example is  FirstNet. This is an organization that DHS sponsors whose purpose is to set up and maintain a high quality network that is only available for first responders.

The Blue Campaign

The Blue Campaign is a program that was created by the Department of Homeland Security, which works in partnership with law enforcement agencies as well as other government agencies to spot, take down, and prevent human trafficking. It also seeks to provide relief and protection to those who have been victimized by human trafficking.

 What happens if the Department doesn’t get its funding?

If the Department of Homeland Security does not receive the funding that it needs to keep the doors open, all non-vital programs will be shut down and many of its employees–roughly 15 percent, or 30,000–will be furloughed. The rest–approximately 200,000–will still work, but will not necessarily receive anything for their work. While 15 percent doesn’t seem like too many, any reduction in DHS staff is a concern for our national security and first response capabilities. The video below explains not only how America arrived at this situation, but also what will happen if the money doesn’t make it to DHS in time.

Crisis Averted?

The deadline has been postponed, and the DHS is now funded through March 19, 2015. That being said, the argument still isn’t over. There are still a lot of things that Congress will have to sort out before DHS is guaranteed to stay funded. Arguments over President Obama’s immigration plans are first and foremost. The Department of Homeland Security is a vital tool that the United States uses to make sure its borders are secure and that its citizens are safe. If the funding keeps getting held up, the viability of all of these programs is at risk.

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Blue Campaign

Department of Homeland Security: Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security: DHS Budget

Department of Homeland Security: First Responders

Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security Act of 2002

Department of Homeland Security: RDP

Department of Homeland Security: SAFECOM

Department of Homeland Security: Secretary Jeh Johnson

Additional

HISTORY.com: 9/11 Attacks – Facts & Summary

USA Today: Homeland Security Shutdown: What’s It All About?”

MSNBC: A DHS Shutdown by Any Other Name

CNBC: Congress Pursues Funding to Avert DHS Shutdown

Politico: GOP Leaders Set to Swerve DHS Off the Cliff

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Homeland Security: The Rise of National Security After 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

In 2008, the film “Taken” shocked America and launched a blockbuster trilogy success. The movie wasn’t just gratuitous action scenes, however–it offered a lens into the world of human trafficking. It included a common stereotype that human trafficking doesn’t occur in the United States, and that it’s the rest of the world’s problem. This is not true–trafficking does happen here in the U.S. and it’s a big issue. Here’s a breakdown of everything you should know about human trafficking in the U.S.

What is human trafficking?

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, “victims of human trafficking are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of commercial sex or forced labor.” It exists in rural, suburban, and urban locations. Human trafficking is sometimes known as modern day slavery. It usually occurs in the U.S. when people from other nations are brought in illegally to serve as free labor.

Read more about ending modern day slavery.

Human trafficking commonly brings to mind confinement, blindfolds, and drugs. Sometimes that can happen, but human traffickers also practice more subtle approaches. They influence their victims with various means, including:

• Debt Bondage: Captors will claim their victims owe a debt. The debt is paid in exchange for forced sex or labor.
• Public Isolation: Keeping victims from family, friends, work associates, and religious groups can cause victims to feel helpless and weaken their resolve to fight back.
• Confiscations of identification/traveling documents (Passports, visas, identification cards, etc.): Foreigners smuggled into the country need proper documentation to leave the country. The applications for documentation can be tedious and cause embarrassment, especially if they don’t have the identification required.
• Shaming: Human traffickers will threaten exposure to victims’ families, particularly if the victim has been forced to engage in sex work.
• Threat of Deportation/Imprisonment: Victims are threatened to be exposed to immigration authorities for violating immigration laws.
• Financial Control: Traffickers will withhold their victims’ money for “safekeeping,” making it impossible for the victims to set out on their own.

Each of these strategies is designed to make victims feel helpless and alone.  A demoralized victim is a weaker victim. Empowered victims are more likely to run away, alert authorities, and/or take a stand.

What happens to the victims of human trafficking?

There are long-term damages to victims of human trafficking. Tragically, a large percentage of these victims are children. Physically, victims of human trafficking can suffer from disease, stunted growth, and malnutrition. Psychologically, many victims will bypass key social, moral, and/or spiritual development. They can feel ostracized from the outside world. They are also at higher risk to fall victim to similar crimes again.

Statistics

It is important to note that due to the invisibility and nature of these crimes, statistics vary widely. While the following statistics are based on estimates, they’re still very disturbing.

Globally

There are quite a few estimations, but there are approximately 27 million slaves around the world, although only six percent are considered “identified.” There 800,000 people  trafficked across international borders every year, and one million children fall to the commercial sex trade. Of all the world’s trafficking victims, 80 percent are women and children. There are currently 161 countries affected by human trafficking, which is a $32 billion industry.

United States

In the United States, the average entry to prostitution is 12-14 years old. Previously sexualized victims and runaways are high-risk victims. Domestically, between 14,500 and 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States annually. California has the highest volume of sex trafficking areas. The top 20 highest volume cities include Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, Miami, Las Vegas, New York, Long Island, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, and Tampa.

Case Study: Inside the FBI Weekly Podcast

A 2009 podcast, “Inside the FBI,” details the account of a prominent U.S. human trafficking case. In it, Neal Schiff interviews FBI Special Agent Tricia Whitehill. She was involved in a case where multiple members of the Vasquez-Valenzuela family were indicted for “conspiracy, sex trafficking, and various immigration offenses.”

The investigation all started in 2006 when the family’s taxi driver called in a tip to CAST, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. He remained a source throughout the investigation. The family had brought in girls in their teens and early twenties from Guatemala to the U.S. The family targeted poor and uneducated girls, some of whom did not even know their own birthdays. The Vasquez-Valenzuela family lured the girls back to the U.S. by promising them jobs in the jewelry and restaurant industries.

Once the girls were successfully smuggled, they were told they owed a debt that had to be paid in prostitution. If the girls didn’t initially comply, they were threatened with violence, witchcraft, and the death of their families. After the arrests of eight out of the nine offenders, one family member was left unaccounted for and went on the run. She was finally weeded out of hiding through the help of publicity and the general public. Public awareness can make all the difference. The leader of the family received the toughest sentence of 40 years in prison.

While this was a case in which the traffickers were successfully apprehended, in many more instances that’s not the case, even in the U.S.

What legislation does the U.S. use to fight trafficking?

Side by side with public awareness, strong legislation is key to the battle against human trafficking. Here are some of the most important laws addressing human trafficking here at home.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

Long overdue in 2000, this act officially made human trafficking a federal offense. A federal crime is prosecuted under federal criminal law. It also includes provisions for the victims, including federal and state assistance, asylum in the U.S., and shelter and counseling.

Intelligence Reform and Prevention Act of 2004

This law established a Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to “serve as a focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist travel.” It promotes cooperation between state, federal, and intelligence agencies in this effort. It also requires an annual assessment delivered to Congress “regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and traffickers, and their facilitators.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Of 2000

A large percentage of human trafficking occurs in the labor industry, for example in restaurants. This legislation creates investigations into properties suspected of human trafficking and alerts property owners. This prevents the ability of owners to claim ignorance of criminal activity on their property.

Activism to Fight Trafficking

In order to end human trafficking, legislation won’t be enough. Here are some of the steps that others have taken to attempt to combat human trafficking.

Polaris, CAST, and CCO

In September 2014 in a valiant effort to raise awareness against human trafficking in the greater Los Angeles area, Polaris, a non-profit organization fighting against human slavery, CAST, and Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) announced their collaboration. CCO donated 25 digital billboards, 20 conventional billboards, and 20 transit shelter posters. The campaign ran in Spanish and English.

The campaign focused on two aspects. First, it promoted the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, a 24-hour, multi-lingual hotline designed for victims and members of the community. The campaign also encouraged victims to come out of the shadows and seek the help they deserve. The campaign tried to induce a sense of community for victims feeling alone.

The promotion also brought on board regionally elected officials and spokesmen like former NFL player and actor Terry Crews. He championed the cause saying:

Modern slavery is the husband coerced through violence to harvest crops, it’s the mother forced to work excessive hours as a domestic servant with little pay, and it’s the daughter sold online for sex against her will. Modern slavery is the 20.9 million people worldwide estimated to be victims of sex and labor trafficking, and we must do what’s in our power to restore their freedom. The more we raise awareness about the help available for victims of human trafficking in America, the more we can empower them to become survivors.

The more people who receive this message, the stronger the fight. The campaign hopes to target more cities across the U.S. in the future.

Presidential Involvement

In a step to bring further awareness to the general public, President Obama designated January to be National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a press release, he wrote:

Even today, the darkness and inhumanity of enslavement exists. Millions of people worldwide are held in compelled service, as well as thousands within the United States. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we acknowledge that forms of slavery still exist in the modern era, and we recommit ourselves to stopping the human traffickers who ply this horrific trade.

In September 2012, continuing his commitment, President Obama spoke to the Clinton Initiative in New York. Partnered with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the President laid out a three-part plan to combat human trafficking. First, to “spot it and stop it.” That part of the plan calls for extensive reports to further government understanding, more effective training for all interagency task force members involved, collaboration with transportation services, and aid educators to spot potential trafficked victims among their students. Second, the plan hopes to use the internet as a weapon against human trafficking. The internet has been a great tool for the human-trafficking industry and the President wants to “turn the tables.” The plan aims to recruit tech companies and college students to the fight. Third, the plan aims for further dedicate resources for recovery. For example, to simplify the application for T-visas, designed to protect victims of human trafficking.

Other Groups Involved in the Fight Against Trafficking

There are many other groups involved in the fight against trafficking that attack different parts of the problem. They include:

• Not for Sale: A non-profit, international organization dedicated to raising awareness for sexual slavery.
• Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition (California): Based in San Diego, the BSCC is comprised of more than 40 government and nongovernment agencies in the U.S. and Mexico to battle human trafficking.
• You Are Never Alone (Maryland): YANA provides a safe haven to women and children involved in prostitution who are seeking a better life.
• New York City Community Response to Trafficking (New York): The CRT is a team of community-based organizations and criminal justice agencies dedicated to responding to and raising awareness of human trafficking.
• Center for Multicultural Human Services (DC): CMHS received a joint federal grant with the Break the Chain Campaign from the Office for Refugee Resettlement to administer pre-certification and post-certification services to victims of trafficking in the Washington D.C. metro area.

Conclusion

With all of these laws in place, and so many activists working to fight it, why is trafficking still happening at such an alarming rate? It is hard to stop an industry so high in demand across the globe, regardless of its vile nature. In recent years, the internet is largely to blame. It allows for anonymity and easy communication internationally between buyer and seller. The deep web, not accessible through standard web searches, is a large black market tool. Another answer is that sex trafficking is almost impossible to obliterate when most of the victims are unidentified. Both rape and sexual slavery victims rarely come forward due to the highly personal sensitivity of the crime. However, we’re taking steps in the right direction with more laws and movements of activism. Hopefully, someday, the travesty that is human trafficking will become a thing of the past.

Resources

Primary

Office of Refugee Resettlement: What is Human Trafficking

Homeland Security: Human Trafficking Laws and Regulations

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Trafficking Report

White House: Presidential Proclamation

Additional 

Case Act: What is Human Trafficking

FBI Podcasts and Radio: International Human Trafficking

Polaris: Polaris, Cast, and Clear Channel Outdoor Law Anti-Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign

Judges’ Journal: President Obama’s Speech on Human Trafficking

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Trafficking: Alive in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Hacking attacks are estimated to cost the global economy a whopping $400 billion each year. With recent attacks on Sony and U.S. Central Command, it seems like nothing online is completely safe. The United States is scrambling to improve cybersecurity and prevent attacks that could otherwise have major impacts on national security, the economy, and personal safety. Here’s what you need to know about cybersecurity policy, government efforts, and what to expect in the future.

What is cybersecurity?

In the increasingly digital world with an ever-growing e-commerce sector, cybersecurity is of vital importance. Cybersecurity is a broad concept that resists a precise definition; it involves protecting computers, networks, programs, and data from cyber threats. Cybersecurity can help protect privacy and prevent unauthorized surveillance and use of electronic data. Examples of cyberattacks include worms, viruses, Trojan horses, phishing, stealing confidential information, and control system attacks. Because of it loose definition, it is hard for the government to regulate how businesses should protect their systems and information. A number of different measures are used to ensure at least a basic level of cybersecurity.

How does cybersecurity work?

Cybersecurity helps to prevent against the risks associated with any cyber attack, which depend on three factors:

1. Removing the threat source. Determining who is attacking can indicate what kind of information or advantage they are seeking to gain. Cyberattacks may be carried out by criminals, spies, hackers, or terrorists, all of whom may do it for different reasons.
2. Addressing vulnerabilities through improving software and employee training. How people are attacking is important in trying to set up the best cybersecurity possible. This can be likened to an arms race between the attackers and defenders. Both try to outsmart the other as the attackers probe for weaknesses in their target. Examples of vulnerabilities include intentional malicious acts by company insiders or supply chain vulnerabilities that can insert malicious software. Previously unknown, “zero day” vulnerabilities are particularly worrisome because they are unknown to the victim. Since they have no known fix and are exploited before the vendor even becomes aware of the problem, they can be very difficult to defend against.
3. Mitigating the damage of an attack. A successful attack may compromise confidentiality, integrity, and even the availability of a system. Cybertheft and cyberespionage might result in the loss of financial or personal information. Often the victims will not even be aware the attack has happened or that  their information has been compromised. Denial-of-service attacks can prevent legitimate users from accessing a server or network resource by interrupting the services. Other attacks such as those on industrial control systems can result in destruction of the equipment they control, such as pumps or generators.

Examples of common cybersecurity features include:

• Firewall: a network security system to control incoming and outgoing network traffic. It acts as a wall or barrier between trusted networks and other untrusted networks.
• Anti-virus software: used to detect and prevent computer threats from malicious software.
• Intrusion Prevention System: examines network traffic flows to prevent vulnerability exploits. It sits behind the firewall to provide a complementary layer of analysis.
• Encryption: involves coding information in such a way that only authorized viewers can read it. This involves encrypting a message using a somewhat random algorithm to generate text that can only be read if decrypted. Encryption is still seen as the best defense to protect data. Specifically, multi-factor authentication involving a two-step verification, used by Gmail and other services, is most secure. These measures (at least for the time being) are near impossible to crack, even for the NSA.

Watch the video for a basic overview of cybersecurity.

What is the role of the federal government in cybersecurity?

Most agree the federal role should include protecting federal cyber systems and assisting in protecting non-federal systems. Most civilians want to know online shopping and banking is secure, and the government has tried to help create a secure cyber environment. According to the Congressional Research Service, federal agencies on average spend more than 10 percent of their annual IT budget on cybersecurity measures.

There are more than 50 statutes that address various issues of cybersecurity. While much legislation has been debated in recent years, no bills have been enacted. The most recent and significant cybersecurity legislation came in 2002 with the passage of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which requires each federal agency to implement and report on cybersecurity policies.

Over the past several years, experts and policymakers have shown increasing concern over protecting systems from cyberattacks, which are expected to increase in both severity and frequency in the coming years. Most proposed legislation and executive branch action with regard to cybersecurity focus on immediate needs, such as preventing espionage and reducing the impact of successful attacks. Historically there has been an imbalance between the development of offensive versus defensive capabilities. Coupled with slow adoption of encryption technologies, many programs were vulnerable to attack. While the cybersecurity landscape has improved, needs still exist with regard to long-term challenges relating to design, incentives, and the environment. Overcoming these obstacles in cybersecurity remains a challenge.

Design

Developers of software or networks are typically more focused on features than the security of their product. Focusing primarily on the product’s features makes sense from an economic standpoint; however, shifting the focus away from security makes these products more vulnerable to cyberattacks.

Incentives

The distorted incentives of cybercrime make it hard to prevent. Cybercrime is typically cheap, profitable, and relatively safe for criminals. In contrast, cybersecurity is expensive, often imperfect, and companies can never be certain of the returns on the investments they make in cybersecurity.

Environment

Cybersecurity is a fast-growing technology. Constantly-emerging properties and new threats complicate the cybersecurity environment. It is very difficult for the government or private companies to keep up with the pace of changing technology used in cyberattacks. What laws and policies do exist are almost always out of date given the rapid pace of change in cybersecurity.

Watch the video below for an overview of the difficulties of cybersecurity policy.

Has President Obama taken any action on cybersecurity?

With recent attacks and data breaches at Sony, Target, Home Depot, and the Pentagon’s Central Command, the need for toughened cybersecurity laws has been highlighted. Cybersecurity is an issue where both sides of the political aisle see the need to work together. It is clear that a comprehensive policy playbook is needed to guide the government’s response to such serious cyberattacks.

On January 13, 2015, President Obama announced a new cybersecurity legislative proposal, which consists of three parts:

1. Enabling cybersecurity information sharing: The proposal enhances collaboration and cybersecurity information within the private sector and between the private sector and the government. The proposal calls for the private sector to share cyber threat information with the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC). Sharing information about cyber threats with the NCCIC would shield companies from liability. The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security to share threat information as quickly as possible with other agencies like the FBI or NSA. The proposal would also require private entities to comply with privacy restrictions like removing unnecessary personal information and taking measures to protect any personal information that must be shared.
2. Modernizing law enforcement authorities to fight cybercrime: This ensures that law enforcement has the proper tools to investigate and prosecute cybercrime. These provisions would criminalize the sale of stolen U.S. financial data, expand authority to deter selling of spyware, and shutdown programs engaged in denial-of-service attacks. Other components criminalize various cybercrimes.
3. National data breach reporting: Many state laws require businesses that have suffered from breaches of consumer information to notify consumers. The proposed legislation would simplify and standardize these existing state laws. The proposal would also put in place a timely notice requirement to ensure companies notify their customers about security breaches.

Watch the following video for an outline of President Obama’s plan.

On January 16, 2015, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to cooperate with regard to cybersecurity. Cameron expressed concerns about encryption technologies that might make it easier for would-be terrorists to avoid detection. Cameron hopes to outlaw certain forms of encryption. President Obama did not as easily dismiss privacy concerns, but did state that he believes the government can do a better job of balancing both privacy and security.

Why is it hard to implement effective cybersecurity policy?

Congress has tried for years to pass legislation encouraging companies to share information from cyberattacks with the government and with each other; however, liability issues and privacy concerns stopped such laws from passing. Many privacy advocates are speaking out against President Obama’s proposed legislation for the same reasons. They fear that such information-sharing legislation could further the government’s surveillance powers. Some groups caution that substantial National Security Agency reform should come before considering any information-sharing bill. Privacy concerns such as these have made it difficult to pass cybersecurity packages in Congress in the past; however, the recent Sony attack may prove to be a game changer in passing new cybersecurity bills.

Even if President Obama and Congress can implement the above changes, it will still be difficult for the government to enact more effective policy changes. Technology can easily mask the identity or location of those organizing cyberattacks. This can make identifying and prosecuting those responsible near impossible. Justifying an appropriate response to attacks is even harder.

Legislatures and citizens also tend to be kept in the dark due to extreme security regarding a country’s cyber capabilities. Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA sparked public interest in cybersecurity and in the extent of the government’s capabilities. But still, information regarding the U.S.’ cyber policies remains classified and not open to general discussion. Without transparency, it is hard to exercise oversight or explain to the public the government’s cybersecurity activities.

Critics also contend that President Obama’s proposal leaves large gaps in cybersecurity policy. The policy fails to establish ground rules for responding to cyber attacks once they have occurred and it remains unclear how the United States might respond to cyberattacks against government networks or even private sector entities like Sony. While attacks may be criminalized, prosecuting these cases with limited evidence is difficult.

A recently uncovered 2009 U.S. cybersecurity report warned that the government was being left vulnerable to online attacks because encryption technologies were not being implemented fast enough. While the country has come a long way since 2009 there is still much room for improvement. A 2015 review of the Department of Homeland Security stated that:

DHS spends more than $700 million annually to lead the federal government’s efforts on cybersecurity, but struggles to protect itself and cannot protect federal and civilian networks from the most serious cyber attacks.

Conclusion

More needs to be done in the realm of cybersecurity to prevent against cyberattacks. While less legislation may have worked in the past, the scale of recent cyberattacks shows the vast potential for damage to the government, companies, and individuals. President Obama’s recent proposal may be a good start, but more long-term policies are needed to protect citizens from serious cyberattacks. No cybersecurity solution is permanent, so public policy must constantly evolve to suit the needs of its citizens in the cyber realm.

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Federal Information Security Management Act

White House: Securing Our Cyberspace: President Obama’s New Steps

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: A Review of Missions and Performance

Additional

Congressional Research Service: Cybersecurity Issues and Challenges

National Journal: Obama’s New Cybersecurity Proposal Facing Skepticism

UMUC: Cybersecurity Primer

Forbes: Why a Global Security Playbook is Critical Post-Sony

Guardian: Secret U.S. Cybersecurity Report

Reuters: Obama Seeks Enhanced Cybersecurity Laws to Fight Hackers

NPR: Obama, Cameron Promise to Cooperate on Cybersecurity

Yahoo: Obama Says Hacks Show Need for Cybersecurity Law

Huffington Post: What’s Wrong with America’s Cybersecurity Policy?

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cybersecurity: Will We Ever Be Safe? appeared first on Law Street.

Recent media attention has shed light on many of the controversial aspects of police militarization, from excessive force to the use of paramilitary units in routine policing. Less frequently discussed, however, is the significant lack of transparency of these trends. The public lacks information about the extent and impact of equipment transfers and the increasingly hostile police culture. While the military has historically been able to invoke claims to national security to justify its secrecy, should local police departments, tasked to serve and protect our communities, be able to do the same?

Despite the significant lack of information on police militarization, Peter Kraska, a justice studies professor at Eastern Kentucky University, found some disturbing trends among law enforcement agencies. His article, “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond,” documents research on police departments in small localities and demonstrates the recent changes in U.S. law enforcement. Kraska’s findings suggest that more and more low-population areas are forming SWAT teams, which are increasingly used for proactive deployment.

Roughly 40 percent of police paramilitary units, or PPUs, were engaged in warrant work in 1984. By 1995 that  statistic skyrocketed: 94 percent of these specialized, soldier-like teams were used to serve warrants. Kraska notes that the majority “of these PPUs serve in the organization as regular patrol officers during their normal duties.” Despite being trained and designed for emergency situations, PPUs are most often deployed for routine practices.

Capt. Chris Cowan of the Richland County (South Carolina) Sheriff’s Department, told the New York Times that an armored vehicle with a mounted gun, “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Kraska dismisses this perceived arms race saying, “there’s not evidence that the citizenry is grabbing this heavy weaponry themselves, going after cops.”

There is little information about the weaponization of criminals in general, which seems to be a recurring theme in FBI data collection. Kraska claims, “we don’t have good national-level statistics that provide us a good measure of the extent to which the police are fired upon using heavy weaponry, or the policing occupation is more dangerous.” The absence of data is twofold, as little information is available about the increasing militarization of both criminals and police forces.

The Relationship Between Police and Criminals

The U.S. lacks important data on the relationship between police and criminals. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report does include a publication called “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted,” which contains an entire table specifically dedicated to the “Number of victim officers killed with firearms while wearing body armor and receiving torso wounds,” yet they provide no national statistics on killings by police.

“You would think that given these are all taxpayer-funded items, and that they’re coming either directly out of the Department of Defense or they’re coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, and they’re being transferred to supposedly democratically-controlled civilian-based police agencies all over the country, that sort of simple, straight-forward program based in tax dollars, that the data and all the information about that would be easily coughed up.”

-Peter Kraska

Where’s the Data?

It is disturbing that we know so little and that such information is consistently difficult to come by. To gather information about the effects of police militarization, we have to rely on nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Cato Institute. Moreover, the little information that is available is constrained, as many law enforcement agencies will not answer independent surveys.

While data should be limited in certain circumstances, I question the possible reasons for concealing or not collecting so much important data about our law enforcement. What justification could there be for not granting U.S. citizens access to information about our law enforcement? Agencies’ justifications for refusing to provide information to the ACLU include, “the requested documents contained trade secrets, concerns about jeopardizing law enforcement effectiveness… and the costs associated with producing the documents were simply prohibitive.”

As the issue of proactive, if not aggressive, paramilitary units becomes increasingly prevalent, the situation is exacerbated by the disturbing secrecy with which our government handles data. As Kraska says in his 1997 work, the deep bureaucracy behind this kind of law enforcement “acts as a barrier to police-community ties by fostering a ‘we-they’ attitude.” This barrier not only distinguishes our police from citizens, but also separates citizens from information about our police.

Why isn’t our government providing us with uniform information? Kraska says it is a result of “the nature of military bureaucracy, and increasingly police bureaucracy. The bottom line is it’s one of secrecy.” As police culture transforms into military culture, law enforcement naturally distances itself from the community. The increase in police militarization is inexorably linked with a tightened grip on information about law enforcement practices.

I know I will not stand alone in demanding different treatment by not only those who enforce the law, but also by those who create the law. I demand that this policing style come to end. I demand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include information on how many people are killed by our police. I created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the President to request this and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. We are all disenfranchised when deprived of information about the enforcement of our laws, so I think we should all demand.

#WeDemand

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [CHPSocialMedia via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arming the Police Against American Citizens, Part II appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, a SWAT team in Georgia severely injured a 19-month old child with a flash-bang grenade during a drug raid. No weapons or drug charges ended up being made and the child is currently hospitalized. It is not the first time something like this has happened. A former Marine was shot 23 times after police invaded his home, and false assumptions once led to a 92-year old woman’s death. Countless stories like these reflect how police culture is being reshaped to look more like the military.

Over $4.3 billion worth of surplus equipment, which was originally designed for warfare, has been transferred to state and local police agencies, according to the Law Enforcement Support Office. Nearly $450 million of that was transferred in 2013 alone. Since the 90s, federal law has enabled state and local police departments to receive old military equipment from the Department of Defense, often for free. Agencies can apply for and request surplus military equipment on a “first-come, first-served basis.”

Created by the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act, the 1033 program encourages state and local agencies to embrace paramilitary policing methods and equipment, even for drug raids. According to the U.S. Grants Office, “All DoD excess property can be used for counter-drug and other law enforcement activities with the exception of the operation of jails.”

In 1997, Professor Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University provided substantial data and analysis in a paper titled “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond.” His work states, “Between 1985 and 1995, the number of paramilitary units in agencies serving small jurisdictions (25,000 to 50,000 people) increased by 157 percent.” This helps illuminate the proliferation of American SWAT teams or police paramilitary units (PPUs). To find out more, I sought to interview Professor Kraska and was fortunate enough to speak with him over the phone.

“Forget causality, there was not even a correlation between the formation and the deployment of SWAT teams and the rise and fall of property and violent crimes… there’s no direct use of these teams to have any kind of impact on violent crime or property crime. It’s just not what they’re used for.”

– Professor Peter Kraska

The rationale for equipping police with military gear is generally rooted in their safety. Kraska acknowledges that paramilitary units may be useful in situations like school shootings, but he reminds us, “that’s the extreme rarity.” Instead of reacting, they are “mostly doing proactive contraband raids on people’s private residences for the purpose of collecting criminal evidence.” Kraska asserts that PPUs are not being forced to act for the safety of the community; they’re trained to, and choosing to, treat the War on Drugs as if it were actual war.

Most of the scrutiny has been placed on the Department of Defense’s 1033 program. Kraska mentions that news coverage frequently overlooks the role of other government departments in militarizing the police. For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DOHS) offers brand new equipment instead of the surplus material available from the DoD. In an episode of their video series called Fault Lines, Al Jazeera sheds light on recent American police militarization, discussing how DOHS grants for military equipment transfers total over $34 billion. The episode notes the lack of federal guidelines for these transfers, as state and local law enforcement have complete discretion in how the equipment is used.

Beyond the potential for abuse, there are deeper implications of police having military-grade weapons laying around at their disposal.

“It changes, or reinforces, the culture of the police department, and a dangerous element of police culture in a police agency, where they go from thinking of themselves as civilian police in the context of a democratically-controlled society to one where they are more like the military, more like soldiers… It provides for a cultural milieu that is antagonistic to the community.”

-Professor Peter Kraska

The political arguments should come to a halt here. Liberals and conservatives do share common sense. It’s common sense that serving warrants, conducting drug searches, and other routine tasks should never be carried out by police units designed to respond to the worst-case scenarios. The authority of the police is not augmented by militarization, it is corrupted by militarization. When our officers have complete discretion to use extreme prejudice with heavy weaponry, the result is a flash-bang grenade entering a toddler’s playpen.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Feature image courtesy of [Oregon Department of Transportation via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Militarization: Arming the Police Against American Citizens – Part 1 appeared first on Law Street.