Homeland Security

Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked President Obama's effort to protect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation Thursday, deadlocking 4-4 over a plan that had divided the nation as well as the justices.

The tie vote leaves intact lower federal court rulings that stopped the program in its tracks more than a year ago...

It was a sudden, crushing defeat for millions of parents who came to the country illegally and have lived in the shadows, often for decades. The administration had hoped that at least one of the more conservative justices -- possibly Chief Justice John Roberts -- would rule that the plan posed no financial threat to the states and therefore could not be challenged in court.

...the one-sentence opinion simply announced that the court was "equally divided" and unable to muster a majority for either side.

That's all opponents needed to block the "deferred action" program, which would have offered qualifying parents of children who were born in the United States or are legal residents the right to remain in the country...

The immigration battle was waged on two fronts before the court: The administration fought with the states as well as with the House of Representatives, which previously blocked the president's effort to confer legal status to some of the nation's more than 11 million illegal immigrants...

Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents," or DAPA program, in November 2014. It would extend protections to more than 4 million parents who meet the criteria, just as a 2012 program did for immigrants brought to the United States as children. More than 700,000 have qualified for that earlier program.

Once qualified, parents also could apply for work authorization, pay taxes and receive some government benefits, such as Social Security. Those with criminal backgrounds or who have arrived since 2010 would not qualify.

Texas challenged Obama's authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision.

The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, expanding its scope to include whether Obama's action violated the Constitution's "Take Care Clause" by failing to faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

In written briefs and oral arguments, the Justice Department contended that the policy only would make official what was happening anyway — undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records and are not priorities for deportation are generally left alone. The government only has enough funds to deport about 400,000 a year, they said.

Lawyers for Texas and the House of Representatives countered that while the president can decide not to deport individual immigrants, only Congress can defer action on a class-wide basis.

The state's injury claim focused on what it said would have been the need to spend money issuing driver's licenses to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Federal officials said that was Texas' choice, and not a ground for a lawsuit.

A letter from The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers to the American People

The appointment of Mark Morgan as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol is the same as President Obama sitting in that chair.

By now Americans that are paying attention realize that our way of life is under attack by this administration and our institutions have been systematically corrupted by their influence.  This message to the American people is to assist those that do care and are paying attention to connect the dots about how this administration is proceeding with their anti-American agenda to further corrupt border security.   These similarly embedded corruptive agents that remain throughout government after this administration expires will continue their agenda if permitted to do so.

We watched in disgust as the ACLU, SPLC and the Department of Justice joined hands to attack the U.S. Border Patrol for unnecessary violence which was a bogus claim.  We understood at the time those were the first major shots fired by this administration to fundamentally transform and cut the effectiveness of the U.S. Border Patrol to zero when it began. 

Unfortunately, few in Washington D.C. care about National Security and Public Safety and gleefully go along with the administrations attack program that coincides with the Central American surge and the vast un-vetted numbers coming in under the guise of Refugee Resettlement.  Silence is as effective an assent as a yea vote to these plans.

Such official D.C. chicanery gives credence to those doubting any actions by this government consider what is best for the American people.

This  "appointment" is quite obviously another glaring example at first glance. 

Zack Taylor, Chairman and Border Security Expert

NAFBPO.org

------------------------------------------------------------

From: COMMISSIONER KERLIKOWSKE
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:57 AM
Subject: Commissioner's Message: Commissioner Kerlikowske Announces Border Patrol Chief (Kerlikowske reports to Jeh Johnson who reports to President Obama.)

This morning I will be announcing that I have selected Mark Morgan as chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.  You will see from Mark's long career in law enforcement and the leadership positions he has held that he will fulfill at the highest level the obligations and responsibilities of leading the outstanding law enforcement organization that is the Border Patrol.  There was a national search for a chief and a professional and objective process used to select Mr. Morgan.  The pool of candidates who applied yielded an array of extremely experienced, dedicated, and professional law enforcement executives in federal law enforcement and within the Border Patrol who sought this critical position. 

I also want to address very directly the selection of someone who is not a part of the Border Patrol, (which is obviously part of the objective criteria?)   The position of a law enforcement chief at the local, state, or federal level is one that demands an exhausting commitment of time; time that must be spent analyzing its future in light of rapid changes and time charting a course from a variety of perspectives.  (NAFBPO comment, based on political objectives not related to enforcing existing law which constitutes a fundamental transformation.)  That is why almost all federal law enforcement agencies have at various times chosen someone from outside their ranks to make that assessment and chart that course.  (The border patrol did not make this choice, the Obama Administration made the choice which is the same as President Obama filling the position in person.)  The U.S. Capitol Police (Vince Foster), U.S. Park Police, Coast Guard CID, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, ATF (fast & furious), and DEA among others have done the same in addition to large local and state law enforcement organizations across the country.  None of those decisions to have a leader from outside the organization (officially) reflected negatively on the current leadership of those agencies.  In the case of the Border Patrol, the current leadership across the top, from Headquarters to the field, consists of the finest group of men and women that I have worked with in my more than 40 years in law enforcement.

I welcome Mark as an important member of President Obama's leadership team at CBP and DHS and firmly believe that his experience listed below and long and successful career in law enforcement will be of great value to the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol.  (We doubt very seriously that Mark Morgan will benefit the National Security and Public Safety of America or the American people.) 

R. Gil Kerlikowske  Commissioner

_________________________________________________

Mark Morgan

Mark Morgan joins U.S. Customs and Border Protection with a 30-year career in the military and law enforcement related to anti-terrorism and border security operations.  (Specifically, what were each and all of his contributions in fact, not in vague undefined terms?)

Mr. Morgan has a 20-year career at the Federal Bureau of Investigation where he is an Assistant Director. During his time at the FBI, which began as a special agent in 1996 assigned to the Los Angeles Field Office, Mr. Morgan served in multiple leadership positions. 

In 2008, Mr. Morgan served as the Deputy On-Scene in Baghdad, Iraq where he was responsible for all FBI personnel and operations within the Iraq Theater of Operations within the Counterterrorism Division. (Specifically, what did he do?  Did he assist in drafting the rules of engagement for U.S. Military there?  Perhaps screening information deemed not appropriate for the American public? )  

In 2010, he was named the Section Chief of the Strategic Information and Operations Center, with responsibility for leading the FBI’s global command and strategic intelligence center.  (During the phase of the rise of ISIS what specifically were all of his recommendations, published and unpublished?)

The following year,  2011, Mr. Morgan was appointed as the Special Agent in Charge of the El Paso Division, where he was responsible for leading all threat-based and intelligence driven counterterrorism, criminal, cyber, and counterintelligence operations extending from the western tip of Texas to the City of Midland.  (Was he involved in ensuring final development of the Transnational Crime Corridor from Juarez, CHIH, Mexico, into the United States by Wilderness Designations created by an Obama Executive Order in the Potrillo Mountains over the will of the people in the Southwest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PiDPbV0z0&index=5&list=PLZgh-ICwJq-sI5BipuSRUTFqmCMPqUgGY

From 3 minutes 58 seconds to 14 minutes 8 seconds.

In 2013, as the Deputy Assistant Director, Inspection Division, Mr. Morgan directed day to day operations to ensure compliance and facilitate the improvement of performance by providing independent, evaluative oversight of all FBI investigative and administrative operations. (Specifically, did this include removing all training references to radical islamic jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and similar material from training texts and existing investigators guides ?)

In, 2014, Mr. Morgan served in a detail assignment with CBP as the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs where he planned, organized, and coordinated the complete re-design of CBP’s Use of Force Incident Response protocols. He directed operations related to the screening of potential employees for suitability, implemented internal security measures, and launched CBP’s criminal and serious administrative misconduct investigative unit. In this position, he was responsible for obtaining CBP’s new authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against CBP employees.  (Specifically, did this include commendation medals for Agents engaged in deadly force situations wherein they did not use deadly force?  Objectively speaking, what exactly did he cause to be implemented ?)

In 2015, he was appointed as Assistant Director of the FBI’s Training Division, in Quantico, Virginia, with responsibility for overseeing the delivery of training, professional development and defensive systems to the FBI workforce, and domestic national security, law enforcement, and international partners throughout the world.  (Specifically, did part of this training serve as a policy blindfold to investigators for incidents like Fort Hood, San Jose and Orlando?)

Mr. Morgan was an active-duty member and reservist in the U.S. Marine Corps.  Before joining the FBI, he served as a deputy sheriff in Platte County, Missouri and as an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Central Missouri State University and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City.  (Major Hassan was on active duty with the U.S. Army.  Mateen was a security guard for Wackenhut before he became front page in Orlando.  Whatever else are Morgan's qualifications we can be assured his main qualification is carrying out the Obama administrations policies as being levied against law enforcement agencies nationwide and further avoids protecting National Security and Public Safety through strict enforcement of existing Immigration Law

Gov. Brown should tell feds: no more Syrian refugees to Oregon

Will some of the Syrian refugees the Obama administration is hustling through a truncated vetting process make their way to Oregon?

In early April, the Associated Press’ Khetam Malkawi reported, “the first Syrian family to be resettled in the U.S. under a speeded-up ‘surge operation’ for refugees left Jordan” for Kansas City, Mo. “While the resettlement process usually takes 18 to 24 months,” Malkawi wrote, “the surge operation will reduce the time to three months.” Its purpose? To help President Barack Obama meet his goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Between the start of the fiscal year last October and April 1, the State Department reports, 17 Syrian refugees had been resettled in Oregon. Obama’s surge could increase that number suddenly and dramatically — to the detriment, as we’ll see, of many Oregonians. First, however, let’s look at what 10,000 Syrian refugees could mean for the nation as a whole.

In regard to their country of origin, FBI counter-terrorist official Michael Steinbach told Congress last year, “We don’t have systems in place on the ground to collect information to vet ... The dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would (consult) to seek information” about refugees don’t exist. Consequently, even under the more comprehensive pre-surge vetting, terrorists from Syria could and did slip through the cracks. One prominent example: Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, a Syrian admitted to the United States as a refugee in 2012, returned to his home country and fought for the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam in late 2013 and early 2014. Afterward, eluding State Department screening yet again, he returned to the United States. Under Obama’s dramatically-shortened vetting process, even more Al-Jayabs likely will be able to enter our country.

Granted, not all Syrian refugees would be terrorists. But to the communities in which they settle and to Americans as a whole, they would constitute a significant fiscal burden. “More than 90 percent of recent Mideast refugees draw food stamps and about 70 percent receive free health care and cash welfare,” noted Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector estimates that the 10,000 Syrian refugees the administration aims to resettle here, over the course of their lifetimes, likely would cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion.

And now, to Oregon.

Late last year, Gov. Kate Brown said our state “will ... open the doors of opportunity” to Syrian refugees. If she makes good on that, however, she may shut those same doors on some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

According to the Oregon Employment Department, some 200,000 Oregon residents are unemployed or underemployed. Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated recently, more than 16 percent of Oregonians live in poverty. The city of Portland, OPB reported late last year, has a shortage of some 24,000 housing units “affordable to the lowest-income renters” (those available for $750 a month or less); the Washington County housing market, said the county’s Housing Services Department, has recently suffered “a shortage of affordable housing for extremely low-income and low-income households.” And Oregon’s $7.4 billion K-12 school fund for the 2015-17 biennium, a state legislative committee determined last year, was almost $1.8 billion short of the amount needed “to reach the state’s educational goals.” Clearly, some of Oregon’s youngest and poorest would be harmed by an influx of refugees who would compete against them for already-insufficient jobs, shelter and education dollars.

What then, should Brown do?

Federal law 8 U.S.C. 1522 states that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is charged with resettling refugees, “shall consult” with state governments “concerning ... the intended distribution of refugees among the states and localities before their placement.” Among the criteria for such placement: “the availability of (an area’s) employment opportunities, affordable housing, and public and private resources (including educational, health care, and mental health services.)” The law further directs HHS, “to the maximum extent possible,” to “take into account recommendations of the state(s).”

Citing this law, Brown should contact HHS and explain how an influx of Syrian refugees would harm some of her state’s most vulnerable residents. Coming from a Democrat friendly to the president’s overall agenda, her argument could sway the department’s chief refugee-resettlement officials.

Though the governor’s compassion toward refugees is laudable, it is to her fellow Oregonians — those she was elected to serve — that she owes her foremost responsibility. Immediately, she should contact HHS and say: For the sake of our own struggling people, send no more Syrian refugees to Oregon.

Cynthia Kendoll of Salem and Richard F. LaMountain of Cedar Mill are president and vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform

The Miscarriage of Justice Department

The constitutional challenge to President Obama’s executive action on immigration keeps getting more remarkable. A federal judge has now exposed how the Justice Department systematically deceived lower courts about the Administration’s conduct, and he has imposed unprecedented legal measures to attempt to sterilize this ethics rot.

On Thursday District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas found that Obama Administration lawyers committed misconduct that he called “intentional, serious and material.” In 2015 he issued an injunction—now in front of the Supreme Court—blocking Mr. Obama’s 2014 order that rewrote immigration law to award legal status and federal and state benefits to nearly five million aliens.

When 26 states sued to block the order in December 2014, Justice repeatedly assured Judge Hanen that the Department of Homeland Security would not start processing applications until February 2015 at the earliest. Two weeks after the injunction came down, in March, Justice was forced to admit that DHS had already granted or renewed more than 100,000 permits.

Justice has also conceded in legal filings that all its lawyers knew all along that the DHS program was underway, despite what they said in briefs and hearings. One DOJ lawyer told Judge Hanen that “I really would not expect anything between now and the date of the hearing.” As the judge notes, “How the government can categorize the granting of over 100,000 applications as not being ‘anything’ is beyond comprehension.”

Justice’s only explanation is that its lawyers either “lost focus on the fact” or “the fact receded in memory or awareness”—the fact here being realities that the DOJ was required to disclose to the court. The states weren’t able to make certain arguments or seek certain legal remedies because the program supposedly hadn’t been implemented, leaving them in a weaker legal position.

More to the point, an attorney’s first and most basic judicial obligation is to tell the truth. Judge Hanen concludes that the misrepresentations “were made in bad faith” and “it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct.” Many a lawyer has been disbarred for less.

As a result, Judge Hanen ordered that any Washington-based Justice lawyer who “appears or seeks to appear” in any state or federal court in the 26 states must first attend a remedial ethics seminar on “candor to the court.” He also ordered Attorney General Loretta Lynch to prepare a “comprehensive plan” to prevent such falsification. Such extraordinary judicial oversight is usually reserved for companies with a pattern of corruption or racially biased police departments. Justice is sure to appeal, and whether Judge Hanen has the jurisdiction to impose his plan is uncharted legal territory.

Yet the misconduct he has unmasked should trouble Americans of all political persuasions. Prosecutors often abuse their powers in run-of-the-mill cases. But this is a constitutional challenge with major consequences for the separation of powers, and the deceit must have required the participation and coordination of dozens of political appointees and career lawyers. That suggests a serious institutional failure, not mere rogue actors.

Main Justice may have figured that the state challenge would be tossed for lack of standing, and thus its dissembling wouldn’t matter. This would mean that President Obama’s refusal to recognize the legal limits of his executive power has spread a culture of lawlessness among his lawyers too.

AG Lynch could salvage the credibility of the Justice Department by explaining how this breakdown happened. Whether you worry about how Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would wield government powers, everyone has an interest in an honest accounting of the facts that were denied to Judge Hanen.

'Refugee' ruse: An illegals pipeline

Since the surge of “children” — primarily male teens — from Central America in 2014, the Obama administration has tried various ways to open the floodgates to this segment of illegal aliens. The latest attempt, billed as “family reunification,”...

Except most of them are not refugees, according to a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis.

To better manage the “crisis,” a new refugee-resettlement program set up in Central America coordinates with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees....

Trouble is, most of these children who leave their homes in Central America “do not do so for fear of persecution” and, by the U.N.’s definition, are not refugees, writes Nayla Rush for CIS. “Wouldn’t it make more sense to provide them with the care they need away from danger but in their own country or close to it?”...

Once established in the U.S., these “refugees” can obtain legal status and sponsor their illegal relatives living the U.S.

This is nothing more than a means to an end, focused not on what’s best for the children but on illegals’ amnesty.

1,019 refugees received in Oregon in 2014

The Federation for Immigration Reform has issued a new 2-part report on distribution of refugees in each state in the U.S. from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014.

The report is based on statistics from federal sources. FAIR prepared charts showing the distribution in each state 

Below is FAIR’s chart of the 1,019 refugees admitted to Oregon, showing the country of originClick here to see the chart.

The page about Oregon is shown on page 29 of the 50 pages in FAIR’s summary. Because Delaware, Montana, and Wyoming have not yet received any refugees, they are not included in the list.

According to this chart, the percentage distribution of refugees by country of origin that were received in Oregon from Oct. 1 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014 are as follows:

Iraq - 28%

Somalia - 21%

Burma – 19%

Bhutan - 10%

Dem Rep Congo - 7%

Iran - 4%

Ukraine - 2%

Afghanistan - 2%

Other - 7%  (includes Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Moldova, Sudan, Russia, Vietnam, Belarus, China, and Kazakhstan)

For more detailed information about issues related to refugee resettlement in the United States and our national security,  please visit the CAIRCO website

In a time long, long ago, our national sovereignty came first

In a new US Inc. blog post that smacks of the sarcasm of disbelief, Rick Oltman explains the new guidelines by which immigrants are accepted into our country.

Read the full blog post:  http://usinc.org/give-me-your-tired-poor-and-militant-and-well-pay/

 


 

Townhall meetings coming your way

Alert date: 
2016-02-08
Alert body: 

Next week, Representative Kurt Schrader will be hosting town hall meetings around the district  These meetings are a chance for you to visit, talk about what's been going on in Washington, and find out ways that his office can be of service to you.

Oregon City Town Hall - Tuesday, February 16th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Providence Willamette Falls Community Center Auditorium
519 15th Street
Oregon City, OR 97045

Salem Town Hall - Wednesday, February 17th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Salem Library - Loucks Auditorium
585 Liberty Street SE
Salem, OR 97301

Military Academy Day Open House - Saturday, March 5th, 10 a.m. - noon*
West Linn High School
5464 W A Street
West Linn, OR 97068
*Presentation begins at 11 a.m.
 

Shape Immigration System for Years to Come

"The state? I am the state!" — The Sun King, Louis XIV of France

"A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me." — George III of England

"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." — Barack Obama

I will leave it to others better at punditry to offer the definitive remarks on President Obama's final state of the union speech. I found it to be an unappetizing blend of feel-good, defensiveness, and preacher-like hectoring on living up to our better natures — as defined by him.

Immigration figured prominently: "fix[ing] the broken immigration system" was mentioned right off the bat as one the items yet to be accomplished during his presidency. It also formed a consistent subtext in remarks about immigrants, inclusiveness, not blaming aliens for depressed wages, etc. But there was nothing in the way of detail for anyone trying to follow the direction these efforts to "fix" the system might take.

This may well be because the president has learned the peril of telegraphing his moves in advance, most particularly when they involve the invidious, imperial, and constitutionally dubious business of using "executive action" to achieve what he cannot bully Congress into doing.

But the clues are there.

When interviewed for a cloying article published in New York Magazine, recently appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch commented that "My goal is to position the department [of Justice] where it will carry on in all of these issues long after myself and my team have moved on."

One suspects that it is not just Lynch, and not just the Department of Justice (DOJ) where this effort is taking place to embed into the organs of government, on a long-term basis, left-leaning progressive policies. How, exactly, might the president and his cabinet accomplish this?

There are two ways, and the first has become well known: using "executive action" to stretch the power of the presidency into arenas constitutionally preserved to other branches of government to achieve what they wish. Even if we were to assume that the next president promptly begins the process of rescinding these actions, there have been so many, and they have been so far-reaching, that it will take years to undo the damage, if indeed it can be undone. The federal bureaucracy is like a battleship; formidable, but slow to change direction precisely because of its awesome size and complexity.

Which brings us to the second way the president and his cabinet can push their agenda long after vacating their chairs. It is well known that presidents, all presidents, regardless of party, eagerly cram the federal judiciary with appointees who share their views, at the district and appellate court levels and — the crown jewel — even the Supreme Court when vacancies appear, which happens rarely because federal judges and justices are given lifetime appointments. While there are only nine Supreme Court justices, there are hundreds of district and appellate court judges, so vacancies appear regularly.

Less well known is how to manipulate the federal bureaucracy, which is so large and so all-pervasive in virtually every sector of society that it has been referred to by some as "the secret state." Others have observed that because of the extraordinary growth of government, our democratic republic has transformed itself into an "administrative state," in which power has accreted into the hands of powerful agencies responsible primarily to the executive branch. The Obama White House has excelled in understanding and manipulating this dynamic.

By taking control over key positions (and by this I do not mean the political appointees themselves, who come and go with each administration), an administration can influence events years into the future. Consider, for instance, DOJ, since we began this discussion with the Lynch interview. In the immigration context, a key component of DOJ is the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). EOIR is composed of both the immigration courts and the appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Every immigration judge or BIA member is appointed by the attorney general, and they are for all intents and purposes permanently tenured. It would take egregious acts of malfeasance to remove them.

These are the officials who literally define the course of immigration hearings throughout the entire nation. Place into those positions enough individuals who view immigration through the liberal filter of the Obama administration and you have skewed the direction of immigration enforcement for decades to come. Add significant new immigration judge or BIA positions into the mix, approved by Congress due to court workloads and backlogs, and you have even further shaped the future into a funnel of your choosing.

The same can be done at the Department of Homeland Security, again sidestepping the political appointees who come and go with regularity, and pushing down to the next one or two levels of the bureaucracy. By exercising philosophical and political litmus tests for those you choose to appoint as your head of asylum and refugee affairs (who will in turn select the officers who perform the function of approving and denying applicants for asylum), you have effected a near-permanent influence on how those adjudications will be performed. As recent events have shown us, there is a direct and sometimes adverse effect between the quality of those adjudications, and national security and public safety.

As we lurch through this last year of Barack Obama's presidency, some of the changes he effects may be invisible to the naked eye, but make no doubt that Lynch was being neither rhetorical nor hyperbolic in her remarks in asserting that they will be felt for generations to come.
 

Syrian refugees - a crisis in the making

The United States is easily the most compassionate country on earth.  But, will our blind compassion ultimately be our downfall? 

Read this in-depth article about the Syrian refugee crisis and our national security, then decide for yourself if the American people are being duped by the very government whose job, first and foremost, is to protect us.

Fred Elbel, director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIRCO) has compiled an extensive number of sources for his compelling article.

Oregon's Governor, Kate Brown, is one of a diminishing number of Governor's who are welcoming the refugees to Oregon.  OFIR urges you to contact the Governor's office and express your opinion about her decision.


 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Homeland Security