Talk:United States Department of Homeland Security/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

November 2002

"Partisan wrangling"? How is that NPOV, please? --Eloquence 16:20 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Good catch. Corrected. Thanks. --Ed Poor 16:25, 26 November 2002 (UTC)

December 2002

Question: I am not sure I remember. Did Bush get his way on the employee thing? Was the constitutional challenge link supposed to indicate that the ACLU was challenging them on that specific issue? If this is the case, someone should put this statement in the text of the article.

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.105.69 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2002 (UTC)

May 2003

could someone working on this article please incorporate this news item? [1] Kingturtle 19:44 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Re: The new Homeland Security infobox:

The sources for the budget and employee figures is an article published by FOXNEWS.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70974,00.html). The employee figure (164,184) was rearched by adding up the employee figures of each department going into the DHS.

--hoshie 03:40, 11 June 2003 (UTC)

Who initiated the change, the blues or reds

This article seem to say that democrats initiated the creation of DHS. I was under the impression DHS is purely the work of conservatives. Anyway, i think that is worth highlighting in the main article. "President Bush, resistant to early entreaties by Democrats to create the department after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, eventually embraced the idea -- but insisted on freedom from many existing civil service laws in assembling the new bureaucracy." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 03:28 28 January 2005 (UTC)

The Democrats came up with the idea and pushed for it, and the Republicans opposed it. Then, just before the 2002 midterms, the Republicans removed workers rights protection fro the propsal and pushed for it, so they could look good in the elections and the Dems would look bad by having to fight their creation to protect its workers. Typical Republicans, playing election-day-grab with national securty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuralyov (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

History of the department

Shouldn't the history of the department before its creation be mentioned in the article? Wasn't it suggested originally in early 2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackercs (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

DHS role in uncovering terror plots

I see no evidence behind this statement presented. Are there events and incidents that can be presented as proof for this claim, or is it boilerplate lifted from a government website/pamphlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.31.236 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Another comment on this: note that to support this statement, while it is necessary to demonstrate that several domestic terror plots have been uncovered by DHS, this is not sufficient. It is also required to demonstrate that the reforms instituted by DHS or by the creation of DHS itself were "instrumental" in uncovering these plots. It is possible to imagine that plots have been uncovered, which would have been uncovered without the creation of DHS or its reforms. Revolver 23:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Again: "Although controversial, the reforms instituted by the Department have been instrumental in uncovering several domestic terror plots."

I would like to see these incidents discussed, or this sentence removed. Vivacissamamente 23:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like White House PR

"Although controversial, the reforms instituted by the Department have been instrumental in undercovering several domestic terror plots."

I think this sentence needs to be removed if a source isn't cited. --user: Detroit journalist 07:26, 7 December 2005

I agree; that was the first thing I thought when I read that sentence. Source, please? If the DHS has actually done something good, I think it deserves more specific documentation. (n.b. I have consolidated some other comments about this sentence which were further down on this page.) --Woozle 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Article about USDHS, not Hurricane Katrina

I do not feel that the leading section of this article should be about Hurricane Katrina. Since it is about the DHS, it should have general information about the agency, such as structure, et cetera. Katrina response can be moved to a differnet location in the article. Penguincube 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

a few changes 10/19/05

Modified the timeline for the Department's creation, citing March 1 as the date that the majority of DHS operations began (even though it officially came into existence on Jan 24). Also clarified the difference between the White House Office of Homeland Security and DHS.

Finally, removed the paragraph saying it is "only accountable to the executive." DHS is a fairly tranparent Federal Department accountable to the Congress. Comparing it to the KGB is unsupported as it is not a 'spying' agency -- it's a large federal bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.143.21 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

United States Office of Homeland Security

Wouldn't it make sense to merge United States Office of Homeland Security into this page's History section? OK, so "...the office was superseded, but not replaced..." -- what's that supposed to mean? My dictionary says those 2 words are synonymous. And even if there is some technical difference, is there any practical difference? (A bit like Operation Desert Sword. Does anyone remember all 2 minutes of that?) Ewlyahoocom 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Ready.gov back into DHS

I proposed this merge because the segment on DHS seemed fine (and the Ready.gov version is a little out of date). Perhaps consider changing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready.gov to a redirect to the DHS page or the DHS page Ready.gov section? +Johnson 09:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Ready.gov content can be easily updated, and it is notable in its own right. MPS 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then please expand the Ready.gov site to more than just a copy of what was on DHS and place a

Main article: Ready.gov

link in DHS where appropriate. I don't think there is any real reason to give Ready.gov its own article since there is not much information on it, and I feel that a redirect would suffice, but if you insist, it would be nice to make some changes to Ready.gov. +Johnson 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia from Ready.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.5 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this supposed to show? All you had to do to make that was put wikipedia at the end. If I wanted to, I could say Link to Myspace from Ready.gov. What is the purpose? +Johnson 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Page is incomplete

Without a discussion of criticism, this page is incomplete. Right now it is POV, criticism section of Ready.gov was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson542 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Elections

Does anyone have any input on how elections are carried out in DHS? Who assigns or elects DHS Officials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaycorrales (talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Appointment of DHS Leadership

DHS operates in the same manner as other Cabinet Departments (Treasury, Justice, Defense, etc.). Senior leadership (the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, etc.) are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. There are other political appointments at a lower level that do not require Senate confirmation. Many mid- to upper-level leadership positions are filled by career civil servants as well.

The only elected officials (I think) in the Executive Branch are the President and Vice President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddief (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for article

I'm a bit confused on the differences between the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Defense. It seems to me that both departments maintain similar functions, and I would like something in the article that further explains their differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.240.93 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a serious question?--Wikiwriter706 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Organization

This really seems like useless info. I think that a list of their operating agencies and bureaus would be much more useful, and more concise. Who really cares if DHS has a "Chief Human Capital Officer " or a "Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy"; what really matters is that they run the Secret Service and Citizenship and Immigration Services, yet those appear at the bottom of the article. Cornell Rockey 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this point of view. I think this page needs to be better organized to be as succinct as possible. I think it is important that citizens have transparent understanding of what the DHS is and what it exists to accomplish. --Jaycorrales 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated. Should we seperate Administrative Organization from Major Agencies? Maybe they should be in separate sections. --Jaycorrales 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you updated with the wrong info ... what was there before was accurate.

I added it as a separate section and cited my source. The list of agencies is probably more useful to the average person than a list of positions within the organization (as noted above). --Jaycorrales 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the information you are using is out of date -- there's no longer a 'Directorate of Border and Transportation Security,' for example. (Your source refers to the way the Department was initially created, but it has since been reorganized - dhs.gov has the current org chart) I replaced the section with a list of the seven major operational agencies in DHS - I think that is the simplest way to do it. -- Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddief (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi There! I wanted to point out this sentence, which I feel is slightly misleading and diminishing to the Coast Guard:

Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders.

While the Coast Guard can sometimes be directed by the Dept of the Navy during wartime, it belongs to DHS during peacetime. Nevertheless, whether during war or peace, the Coast Guard is one of the five branches of the Armed Forces. This sentence should include this exception to acknowledge the sacrifices of the proud servicemen and servicewomen who take real risks everyday to protect us - remember, the Coast Guard is always deployed, unlike other branches of the military, so the Coast Guard is doing its thing every single day. It definitely deserves mention here, because this military branch is a very important part of DHS. Here is what the edited sentence could look like:

"Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works mainly in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders.

And additional sentence uld then be added to point out that one of the five branches of the US Armed Forces, namely the Coast Guard, belongs to DHS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.102.176 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done The edits discussed herein were implemented and the information was updated. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on "Effectiveness"

I've started a section entitled "Controversies". I think it's appropriate to include some assessment of DHS's effectiveness in its stated role in the article (the page seems kind of lame without it), but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. Obviously, what I've added is predominantly critical, although sourced. Anyone have thoughts about whether this sort of thing should be included, or about how to do so? Would also welcome sourced positive assessments of DHS for balance. MastCell 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters

I added the small paragraph on the DHS headquarters. If anybody has more info, that'd be good. Tooptoo 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What do they do?

I'd like to have a section about what DHS actually does. I'm kind of confused about the actual activities of the department. Quantumelfmage 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The lion's share of what DHS does is done by the agencies that fall within it -- the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the TSA, FEMA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, and a few others. Eddiefranklin 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agencies

Could we have list of agencies under DHS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.103.20 (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No sourcing for alleged use of tens of thousands of temporary agents

There is no mention of this allegation in sources 13, 14, 15, 16. I recommend deletion of this passage:

"In November 2006 the DHS had also mobilized tens of thousands of temporarily hired agents to conduct surveillance and practice clandestine operations on a person living on disability in Long Beach, California. The operation lasted three months, reached Canada and Taiwan, and was estimated to have cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet the person in question was later assessed to have no connection with threat activities. The case caused a sensation among the intelligence communities in three countries and the exposure of incompetence and massive waste on the part of DHS in the case."

Robert Stephen Spiegel 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done There was no mention of this passage in the article prior to archiving. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of agencies within the DHS?

Would a list of all of the agencies within the DHS belong in this article, or would a new page be better? Most people know that TSA and FEMA are part of DHS, but most don't know that the Secret Service and the Coast Guard are in there too. See http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/#1 - JeffJonez (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done This was implemented and is present in the article at time of archiving. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

USCIS

I went ahead and altered the list of agencies to reflect the new title of INS, USCIS. I choose to do this not only because it is the correct title, but because the article goes on to refer to the agency as USCIS without clarifying that the title had been changed. Alex (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life contoversy

I noticed that there was a controversy about pro-life activists being included among right-wing extremist groups. I'm not sure it fits into the controversies section, but it is something that did cause quite a bit of public outcry. [3] ADM (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole Rightwing Extremists Advisory issue popped up over at Janet Napolitano, and will most likely be moved shortly to the controversy section here. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How Can an Article on DHS be Complete Without Mentioning 12 Million Illegal Immigrants?

The main article doesn't mention the inherent conflict between the words and the image of "homeland security" and the presence of at least 12 million illegal immigrants in America. Also, there's continuing violence and chaos along the U.S-Mexico border. E-Verify, which has the potential to end a lot of illegal immigration, is not even mentioned. The apparent DHS attempts to weaken the REAL ID legislation are similarly not mentioned. So this article is woefully incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was complete. Start placing cited facts in the relevant sections (I'll guess 'criticisms' in this case) and let's see what sticks. You can also work (not rant) on the Real ID, E-verify and Illegal immigration to the United States articles when you're done here. - JeffJonez (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

JeffJonez - 1. IP - 0. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: Not archived in Archive 1 because Facepalm . --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 06:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What about the state departments of homeland security

Each state has its own department of homeland security...anybody care to help me write article on them?Smallman12q (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fusion Centers

The Fusion Center section has an extended quote that, in my reading, distorts an original source document:

David Rittgers of the Cato Institute has noted..."and the Department of Homeland Security described half of the American political spectrum as “right wing extremists.”[60]"

The David Rittgers' article referenced by note 60 contains a link to a DHS intelligence report titled "Rightwing Extremism...." Mr. Rittgers may believe "half the political spectrum" consists of right wing extremists. The DHS intelligence report report does not say that. I think that part of the quotation should be deleted because it represents opinion not supported by the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellavita (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

--Bellavita (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Budget

The mentions of the DHS's budget seem designed to give biased pro-DHS impressions, and certainly gives confusing impressions:

1) The opening paragraph has a final sentence of "In fiscal year 2011 it was allocated a budget of $98.8 billion and spent, net, $66.4 billion."

(a) I find it difficult to believe that any government department, of any country, would spend only 2/3rds of its budget.

(b) the "spent, net" strikes me as some sort of definitional trick.

(c) I don't think such a snapshot factoid belongs in the opening paragraph at all, regardless of the values used. It isn't part of what the organization "is", and the size of the DHS is given in the adjacent Box.

(d) And the Box gives the budget as $55.1 billion for the previous year, throwing even greater doubt onto the two values given in the opening paragraph.

2) The "Expenditures" section starts: "In the United States Federal Budget for 2010, entitled 'A New Era of Responsibility'" I object to giving the title.

(a) First, the actual title was: "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise" so the article's statement is factually incorrect.

(b) The title is clearly a political statement of little (any?) factual relevance to a discussion of the DHS's budget.

3) Continuing the "Expenditures" section there is: "the DHS was allocated a discretionary budget of $42.7 billion ... The end-of-year DHS Annual Financial Report ... showed a net cost of operations of $56.4 billion ... out of total budgetary resources of $83.2 billion"

(a) None of the values given agree with the $55.1 billion given in the Box.

(b) "discretionary budget", "net cost of operations" and "total budgetary resources" are undefined terms. How do they relate to each other? How do they relate to the Box's "Annual Budget"? How do they relate to the "net, spent" measure used in the opening paragraph?

In short: What is the DHS's budget?

121.98.218.165 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Martyn

Acquisition of munitions and MRAPs

Why hasn't anyone bother to include DHS' recent purchases of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and MRAP vehicles? At first, I thought this was conspiracy dribble, but after The Denver Post and Forbes ran the story, I would like to think that some diligent user would note this on the article. On a personal note, at the height of combat operations during the 2003 Iraq invasion, the Army was expending 6 million rounds of ammunition. Statistically, DHS has enough ammunition to sustain a war for the next 20 years. Again, this is not conspiracy dribble. This is just statistics and common sense. Why does DHS need that much ammo and vehicles that are designed to resist mines/IEDs if their role is strictly meant for domestic protection within the states?Ryanyomomma (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-rounds

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

Agreed. There are a lot more sources out there too especially regarding Senator Inhofe. It is his contention that Obama is intentionally buying up vast amounts of ammo in order to cause the shortages we've seen everywhere - so Americans don't have the ammo to defend themselves. It is de facto gun control (ammo control). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.24.163 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Lead section

Garzfoth, your excessive tagging of the material added to the lead section flies in the face of WP:LEADCITE. The statement 'The Department of Homeland Security has received substantial criticism over excessive bureaucracy, waste, fraud, ineffectiveness and lack of transparency" is already properly sourced in the United States Department of Homeland Security#Criticism section and is hardly a controversial statement. The statement "Its information sharing centers have been accused of violating American civil liberties and targeting American citizens as potential threats to national security" is a summary of the United States Department of Homeland Security#Fusion centers section. Per WP:LEADELEMENTS "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies", which until now, it has failed to include. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Erm, let me just quote what you're referencing, and let that stand for itself here:

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

I rest my case. Garzfoth (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You have no case. I have written hundreds of articles, reviewed a bit less than that, and I'm fully versed on how lead sections work. I properly summarized and paraphrased the criticism section. Instead of improving it, you inappropriately added incorrect citation tags. Is any of this getting through to you or do I need to revert your tags? If you can't represent the criticism section in the lead, then you have no business disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tags. Unless you are disputing the material in the lead, you will need to stop the disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this belongs in the "criticism" section along with the other criticisms. Not in the beginning of the article where it is meant to contain factual information rather than viewpoints. This is a neutral viewpoint on this issue. If anything, this should be the opener for the "criticism" section, not the whole article. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the whole article, including significant viewpoints and criticisms. We need not add citations to content in the lede that summarizes content in the body that is adequately sourced. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Saw this on NPOV noticeboard. I agree with Hugh, not really needed, though I suppose a cite or two could be thrown in for the sake of comity. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DHS MARCH

Can't find anywhere to cite as source of the "DHS March" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.145.229 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In TV series or movies, there are DHS Federal Agents

Is that true? So far I see DHS is a coordinating agency not one that issues law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantab1985 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cantab1985: Modern movies, especially Hollywood ones, often exaggerate or make mistakes for reasons of convenience, storytelling, ignorance, incompetence, or laziness. If something in a movie contradicts facts stated in a Wikipedia article, then usually I would prefer to trust the Wikipedia article. However, on this specific question, you may find a better answer by asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Just before you do so, I have vague feeling -- perhaps by encountering them -- that HS staff at airports wear HS insignia and are therefore visibly identifiable as "HS agents". Not the same as being an FBI agent of course. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cantab1985: Yes, the Department of Homeland Security has law enforcement agents. Some of the agencies within the DHS that have federal law enforcement agents or are charged with law enforcement duties: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Protective Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret Service. Not all of the employees of these agencies are law enforcement officers but the ones that are law enforcement officers have received training in law, police procedure, tactics, and weapons. Hollywood would have you believe that every employee of DHS is inept, corrupt, and ready to violate your civil rights. The vast majority of the employees at DHS are just doing the job they were hired to do, enforce federal laws. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the question was about whether or not the DHS itself as an organization has law enforcement agents. I don't think the DHS proper itself has law enforcement agents, since it appears to be more of a parent agency. That said, its subsidiary agencies such as the USBP, USSS, USCG, CBP, and FPS certainly do have law enforcement officers with full arrest powers. Sort of like how FBI agents are agents of the FBI under the DOJ. The DOJ's subsidiary agencies, such as the FBI and ATF have law enforcement agents, but the DOJ proper itself doesn't, I think. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is Homeland Security Investigations, which does have special agents. Calidum ¤ 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Though it appears that they are part of USICE, which is a DHS subsidiary agency. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Are these Federal Agents? Again I question as yes ICE, CGIS, FEMA, TSA have federal agents. Homeland Security controls these agencies. HSI--is that agency that produces uniformed/plain clothes Federal Agents? a quick google search https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=%22Homeland+Security%22+%22Federal+Agent%22&oq=%22ho&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59l2j69i61.7366j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 or https://www.google.com.sg/search?safe=off&q=%22Department+of+Homeland+Security%22+%22Federal+Agent%22&oq=%22Department+of+Homeland+Security%22+%22Federal+Agent%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.33216.36131.0.36932.14.14.0.0.0.0.71.813.14.14.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.14.805...0i7i30j0i13i30j0i8i13i30.wJhBWPmEwRY shows there is no direct discussion or link to a Federal Agent from DHS directly.Cantab1985 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to know what started this, it is NCIS New Orleans latest episode, "Help Wanted". In this case, a "Homeland Security Agent" appears to help one of the NCIS agents on a case. He co-leads a raid on a house and announces himself as "Homeland Security!". If this happened in real life, it is legal? Should a citizen (in the USA) accept the announcement that you are a "Homeland Security" agent?Cantab1985 (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's Hollywood, get over it...and no, a citizen shouldn't just accept the fact that someone announces they are "Homeland Security" or any other agent of state or federal law enforcement entity without seeing a uniform or badge. Plainclothes cops still carry a badge of authority or other identity papers. They are required if requested to show those authorizations to a person under arrest. I might point out though that a person is not legally under arrest until they are under the control of the arresting officer and have received their Miranda warning. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: Not archived in Archive 1 because this will never not be a good thing to know. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 06:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2601:246:4500:4F73:4C07:DCAA:18E9:CD25 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The coordinates in the article seemed to be basically correct, though I've tweaked them a bit to indicate a point nearer the center of the complex. If you think that there is a significant error, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Link to criticisms of agencies within DHS

Edit: Found this link of agency criticisms and added it to {{See Also}} template. Shushugah (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like one list to link all criticisms of DHS and its sub agencies. Critique of Border Police could fall under DHS, CBP, BP.

Similarly, there exists numerous criticisms of DHS and its sub agencies in different articles already: United States Department of Homeland Security#Criticism, CBP Criticism, United States Border Patrol#Criticisms and ICE doesn't have any critique section. Shushugah (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Antifa

You are invited to participate in Talk:Antifa (United States)#RfC: antifa and terrorism, a discussion about whether to include that activities by American anti-fascists were labeled as domestic terrorism by DHS. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The family separation policy must be mentioned

There is currently no mention of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

california state with a calexico californias.... 09 10 1990 —174.250.52.7 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC) velasco manuel de jesus velasco hernandez

I'm not sure that I understand your report, but the coordinates in the article are for DHS's headquarters in Wahington, DC. The department apparently has a presence in Calexico (as is to be expected at a border checkpoint), but that's irrelevant to the location specified in this article. Deor (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)