Friday, December 5, 2014

Federal Emergency Preparedness Directives and Systems

EAI Toolkit banner

Federal Emergency Preparedness Directives and Systems

Fact Sheet


Overview

The evolution of state emergency preparedness and response capabilities has been greatly influenced by federal policies and structures developed and refined in the last decade. A concerted federal effort—mandated by legislation and presidential directives—has established frameworks for providing and coordinating emergency assistance to state, local, and tribal governments. Federal grants have provided financial resources to states, localities, and tribes to engage in complementary planning activities and to bolster their response capacity. This fact sheet outlines key presidential directives and strategies affecting state public health emergency preparedness and response activities. (Download a printable PDF.)

Presidential Directives

Presidential directives are orders by the president which are issued under the president’s constitutional or other statutory powers. Presidential directives explain how Executive Branch agencies implement presidential authorities. There are different directive types, such as executive orders and policy directives. The naming and usage of various directive types can change from administration to administration.1 Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) were created during the Bush Administration in 2001 and are presidential directives that pertain to homeland security issues. The Obama Administration uses Presidential Policy Directives (PPDs) for homeland security issues. Presidential directives remain in effect when administrations change, unless otherwise stated in the document or until subsequent presidential action is taken.

HSPDs and PPDs

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush established the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council via executive order to assist with the planning and coordination of federal efforts to combat terrorism and maintain the domestic security of the United States.3 Shortly thereafter, the president launched a new series of directives—Homeland Security Presidential Directives—intended to “record and communicate presidential decisions about the homeland security policies of the United States.”3 Twenty-five HSPDs were issued between October 2001 and January 2009. Several of these directives dictated the development of policies and systems affecting preparedness and response efforts for public health emergencies.
  • HSPD-5: Management of Domestic Incidents—HSPD-5 was intended to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents.4 The 2003 directive described federal policies and objectives; identified steps to improve federal, state, and local incident coordination; and directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a National Response Plan and National Incident Management System (see below).
  • HSPD-8/PPD-8: National Preparedness— HSPD-8 was issued as a companion directive to HSPD-5 to establish policies strengthening U.S. preparedness to prevent and respond to domestic terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The directive required the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal that included “measurable readiness priorities and targets” and “readiness metrics and elements.” The directive also required federal agencies to provide financial and technical support to states, develop first responder equipment standards, and establish training programs to meet national preparedness goals.5 HSPD-8 Annex 1 addressed the development of a standardized national planning process and scenarios for emergencies.  HSPD-8 was issued in 2003; Annex 1 to HSPD-8 was issued in 2007. In March 2011, President Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8), which replaced HSPD-8 and HSPD-8 Annex 1, with the exception of paragraph 44 in Annex 1.6 The new national preparedness directive retains an all-hazards, risk-based approach to national preparedness, while establishing four categories of hazards: terrorism, catastrophic natural disasters, cyber attacks, and pandemics.
  • HSPD-21: Public Health and Medical Preparedness—This directive mandated the development of a national strategy for public health and medical preparedness. HSPD-21 identified four critical components of public health and medical preparedness—biosurveillance, countermeasure distribution, mass casualty care, and community resilience—and established federal agency planning requirements in each of these areas. The directives also addressed planning in the areas of risk awareness, education and training, and disaster health systems.

National Strategy Documents

Federal legislation and presidential directives called for the development of a number of strategies and plans to chart the nation’s planning and response activities for emergencies. These documents complement the National Response Framework, which establishes a national, all-hazards response structure. Key national strategy documents include: the National Health Security Strategy; the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza; and the National Strategy for Homeland Security. The national strategies also address plans for coordinating with state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and the private sector.

National Response Framework

The Homeland Security Act directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a framework to coordinate federal resources during emergencies. DHS released the National Response Plan (NRP) in December 2004.  The NRP was replaced in January 2008 by the National Response Framework (NRF) and updated in May 2013.7 The NRF is implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NRF is not a source of legal authority for incident response; it is used to guide response activities that arise from events of all sizes whether an emergency is declared or not.2 The NRF uses a national, all-hazards approach that describes and integrates roles for federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments and the private sector in preparing, responding, and recovering from incidents. The NRF uses the National Incident Management System to coordinate response activities among governments and organizations at all levels. States have looked to the NRF as a way to structure their response plans. (Please see ASTHO EAI Current Issues Summer 2013 for more information about NRF revisions and other National Planning Frameworks)

Emergency Support Functions

The NRF includes 15 Emergency Support Function (ESF) documents that detail the roles and responsibilities of governmental and certain private sector capacities in key areas (e.g., transportation, communication, public safety, etc.). The ESFs are intended to organize resources and services that are needed to save lives, protect property and the environment, restore essential services and critical infrastructure, and help victims and communities recover after incidents. HHS is tasked as the lead agency on ESF-8 “Public Health and Medical Services”8 and a supporting agency on ESF-6 “Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services.”9
  • ESF-8 (Public Health and Medical Services)—The scope of ESF–8 includes responding to the physical, mental, and behavioral health needs of incident victims and response workers, as well as addressing the medical needs of "at risk" or "special needs" persons. ESF-8 identifies federal supplemental assistance to state, tribal, and local governments in 17 core functional areas, including, among others: surveillance, medical care personnel, patient care and evacuation, food and water safety, fatality management, and veterinary medical support.8
  • ESF-6 (Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services)—FEMA is the lead agency on ESF-6. HHS is tasked with providing supportive human services, public health and medical services, and veterinary medical services under ESF-6.9

National Incident Management System

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) establishes a framework for coordinating emergency response activities among federal, state, tribal, local, nongovernmental, and private sector organizations.10 NIMS is a form of incident command system that uses a consistent framework for incident management at all jurisdictional levels regardless of the cause, size, or complexity of the event. NIMS is intended to be used for all events and incidents, including emergencies and special events, whereas the NRF is activated for only designated events or incidents. HSPD-5 requires all federal agencies to use NIMS in their response activities, including when assisting in state and local events. States and localities are required to adopt NIMS as a condition for receiving federal preparedness assistance grants and contracts.

How Federal Directives and Systems Affect States

Presidential directives establishing emergency planning and response policies and structures have directly affected states’ emergency preparedness and response activities. Federal agency emergency response and assistance to state, local, and tribal governments is organized according to the strategies and policies identified through various national strategies, frameworks, and protocols. States, localities, and tribes have been incentivized to use specific strategies and structures, like NIMS, through federal emergency preparedness grants.

Practice Notes

  • Identify and understand how agencies/offices in your state interact with and implement their roles and responsibilities under the NRF and other national strategies.
  • Understand how complementary state laws, regulations, and programs relate to federal planning and response strategies and frameworks.

Sources

  1. Relyea HC. Congressional Research Service. Presidential Directives: Background and Overview (98-611). November 26, 2008.
  2. U.S. Presidential Executive Order 13228. “Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council.” October 8, 2001.
  3. Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5: Management of Domestic Incidents. February 28, 2003.
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Law Program. “Selected Federal Legal Authorities Pertinent to Public Health Emergencies.” September 2009.
  5. Department of Homeland Security. Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness. March 30, 2011.
  6. Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 21: Public Health and Medical Preparedness. October 18, 2007.
  7. Department of Homeland Security. National Response Framework. January 2008. 2nd. Edition May 2013
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Emergency Support Function #8 – Public Health and Medical Services Annex. May 2013.
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Emergency Support Function #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing, and Human Services. May 2013.
  10. Department of Homeland Security. National Incident Management System. December 2008.
Note: This document was compiled from June–December 2011 and reviewed in May 2013; it reflects the laws and programs current then. It reflects only portions of the laws relevant to public health emergencies and is not intended to be exhaustive of all relevant legal authority. This resource is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional legal or other advice. The document was funded by CDC Award No. 1U38HM000454 to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials; Subcontractor PI Elliott, Logan Circle Policy Group LLC

Secret UN Document Lays Out Plan to Seize Control of Internet

Secret UN Document Lays Out Plan to Seize Control of Internet

Written by 
A report by a United Nations organization calls for the international body to seize control of information shared over the Internet should the governments of member nations fail to pass sufficient cybersecurity regulations.
In the document, called “Trends in Telecommunication Reform: Smart Regulation in a Broadband World,” the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) points to the specter of an attack on the cyber infrastructure of a country as justification for the world body’s assumption of regulation and monitoring of traffic on the information superhighway.
That frightening prospect was first reported by the News Limited Network out of Australia. Paola Totaro and Claire Connelly write:
Advertisement
A draft of the proposal, formulated in secret and only recently posted on the ITU website for public perusal, reveal that if accepted, the changes would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications — including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves.
Their summary is accurate. Citing “the increased use of online applications and services to communicate and do business (such as social media, cloud services, e-payment and other m-banking services),” the ITU proposal calls on “stakeholders” (read: countries that are members of the United Nations) to increase their regulatory control over the Internet lest the threats to cybersecurity become an unmanageable problem.
In what likely comes as no surprise to those familiar with the UN’s policy of consolidating power through the eradication of national sovereignty, the ITU draft proposal would grant the government of any member nation the right to throw the "kill switch" on the Internet should that government suspect that information being exchanged threatens their own or a fellow participating country’s national security.
Although the document admits that when it comes to policing the Internet, “the principles of privatization, competition, and liberalization have been of central importance over the past two decades,” the time has now come, the UN body insists, for government to assume “greater responsibilities” over the flow of information through the Internet.
Thankfully, a coalition of civil rights groups, labor unions, and large cybercorporations have come together to oppose the UN’s plan to police the Internet.
As reported by Common Dreams, this coalition
opposes the plan by some telecommunications companies and countries including China and Saudi Arabia. If approved, it would allow the UN's International Telecommunications Union to charge users for services such as email and restrict access to the internet and monitor activity online.
The International Trades Union Conference, representing 6.2 million union members in Britain, wrote that the proposal could "restrict political freedoms and harm civil society." Such changes would hit users from developing countries particularly hard, according to the ITUC.
The website for Stop the Net Grab warns:
The internet as we know it is at risk. Unless we act now, our right to freely communicate and share information could change forever.
In less than four weeks’ time, the International Telecommunications Union (or ITU), a United Nations agency, is planning to adopt new rules to clamp down on the fundamental freedoms of citizens online.
And:
So far the proposal has flown under the radar, but its implications are so serious that we must act quickly to show the ITU and its member countries that citizens will not stand by while our right to communicate freely is undermined.
Chris Disspain, CEO of auDA, told ITWire that a drive to consolidate power is behind the UN’s net grab. He also said that, "for some countries it is about a belief that they can control things more easily if they go through the UN."
Later in the ITWire piece, it is reported that Greenpeace and the ITUC sent a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to "express their 'deep concern about a potentially very damaging change to the governance of the Internet.'”
As for the reaction from Congress, Common Dreams reports:
At a hearing last May of a U.S. House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats were united in their opposition to any move by Russia and China to transfer control of the Internet to the U.N., according to Steve Elwart of the Koinonia Institute, a subject matter expert for the Department of Homeland Security.
President Obama, as The New American has reported, isn’t willing to wait on Congress to pass any measure addressing the alleged precarious state of U.S. cybersecurity.
Promises of the White House’s imminent issuing of the edict have been coming for months. The Associated Press (AP) obtained a leaked draft version of the order, but indicated that the source of the document didn’t disclose when the president would sign the order.
Greater evidence of the imminent issuing of the order came on September 19, when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the executive order granting the president sweeping power over the Internet is “close to completion.”
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Napolitano said that the order is still “being drafted” and vetted by various high-level bureaucrats. But she also indicated that it would be issued as soon as a “few issues” were resolved. Assuming control of the nation’s Internet infrastructure is a DHS responsibility, Napolitano added.
“DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems,” she informed senators.
Napolitano’s report on the role of DHS squares with the information revealed in the seven-page version of the order the AP has read. According to the report of their findings:
The draft order would put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of organizing an information-sharing network that rapidly distributes sanitized summaries of top-secret intelligence reports about known cyberthreats that identify a specific target. With these warnings, known as tear lines, the owners and operators of essential U.S. businesses would be better able to block potential attackers from gaining access to their computer systems.
The new draft, which is not dated, retains a section that requires Homeland Security to identify the vital systems that, if hit by cyberattack, could "reasonably result in a debilitating impact" on national and economic security. Other sections establish a program to encourage companies to adopt voluntary security standards and direct federal agencies to determine whether existing cyber security regulations are adequate.
The president’s de facto re-routing of all Internet traffic through federal intelligence officers deputizes more than just DHS as cybertraffic cops. The AP reports that “the Pentagon, the National Security Agency (NSA), the director of national intelligence, and the Justice Department” will all cooperate in the surveillance — in the name of national security, of course.
Evidence of President Obama’s impatience was found Thursday in a story published by the Washington Post that reported, “President Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyber­attacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.”
Although unpublished as of press time, that directive, Presidential Policy Directive 20, reportedly “lays out a process to vet any operations outside government and defense networks and ensure that U.S. citizens’ and foreign allies’ data and privacy are protected and international laws of war are followed.”
The citing of “international law” as authority for such an unconstitutional exercise of authority is nothing new. As has happened so frequently during the Obama administration, government — national and international — demands that liberty be sacrificed on the altar of national security.
As for execution of the UN's plan, the 193-member ITU will meet December 3-14, 2012 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at 
.

Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities

Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities

PRESIDENTIAL STUDY DIRECTIVE/PSD-10
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE VICE PRESIDENT
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SUBJECT: Creation of an Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board and Corresponding Interagency Review
Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.
Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.  America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.  Unfortunately, history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort.
Governmental engagement on atrocities and genocide too often arrives too late, when opportunities for prevention or low-cost, low-risk action have been missed.  By the time these issues have commanded the attention of senior policy makers, the menu of options has shrunk considerably and the costs of action have risen.
In the face of a potential mass atrocity, our options are never limited to either sending in the military or standing by and doing nothing.  The actions that can be taken are many    they range from economic to diplomatic interventions, and from non combat military actions to outright intervention.  But ensuring that the full range of options is available requires a level of governmental organization that matches the methodical organization characteristic of mass killings.
Sixty six years since the Holocaust and 17 years after Rwanda, the United States still lacks a comprehensive policy framework and a corresponding interagency mechanism for preventing and responding to mass atrocities and genocide.  This has left us ill prepared to engage early, proactively, and decisively to prevent threats from evolving into large scale civilian atrocities.
Accordingly, I hereby direct the establishment of an interagency Atrocities Prevention Board within 120 days from the date of this Presidential Study Directive.  The primary purpose of the Atrocities Prevention Board shall be to coordinate a whole of government approach to preventing mass atrocities and genocide.  By institutionalizing the coordination of atrocity prevention, we can ensure:  (1) that our national security apparatus recognizes and is responsive to early indicators of potential atrocities; (2) that departments and agencies develop and implement comprehensive atrocity prevention and response strategies in a manner that allows "red flags" and dissent to be raised to decision makers; (3) that we increase the capacity and develop doctrine for our foreign service, armed services, development professionals, and other actors to engage in the full spectrum of smart prevention activities; and (4) that we are optimally positioned to work with our allies in order to ensure that the burdens of atrocity prevention and response are appropriately shared.
To this end, I direct the National Security Advisor to lead a focused interagency study to develop and recommend the membership, mandate, structure, operational protocols, authorities, and support necessary for the Atrocities Prevention Board to coordinate and develop atrocity prevention and response policy.  Specifically, the interagency review shall identify:
  • operational protocols necessary for the Atrocities Prevention Board to coordinate and institutionalize the Federal Government's efforts to prevent and respond to potential atrocities and genocide, including but not limited to:  identifying (standing and ex officio) members of the Atrocities Prevention Board; defining the scope of the Atrocity Prevention Board's mandate and the means by which it will ensure that the full range of options and debate is presented to senior-level decision makers; identifying triggers for the development of atrocity prevention strategies; identifying any specific authority the Atrocities Prevention Board or its members should have with respect to alerting the President to a potential genocide or atrocity;
  • how the Intelligence Community and other relevant Government agencies can best support the Atrocities Prevention Board's mission, including but not limited to:  examining the multiplicity of existing early warning assessments in order to recommend how these efforts can be better coordinated and/or consolidated, support the work of the Atrocities Prevention Board, and drive the development of atrocity prevention strategies and policies; examining options for improving intelligence and open source assessments of the potential for genocide and mass atrocities; and examining protocols for safely declassifying and/or sharing intelligence when needed to galvanize regional actors, allies, or relevant institutions to respond to an atrocity or genocide; and
  • steps toward creating a comprehensive policy framework for preventing mass atrocities, including but not limited to:  conducting an inventory of existing tools and authorities across the Government that can be drawn upon to prevent atrocities; identifying new tools or capabilities that may be required; identifying how we can better support and train our foreign and armed services, development professionals, and build the capacity of key regional allies and partners, in order to be better prepared to prevent and respond to mass atrocities or genocide.
In answering these questions, the interagency review shall consider the recommendations of relevant bipartisan and expert studies, including the recommendations of the bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretaries Madeleine K. Albright and William Cohen.
I direct the National Security Advisor, through the National Security Staff's Director for War Crimes and Atrocities, to oversee and direct the interagency review, which shall include representatives from the following:
Office of the Vice President
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
United States Mission to the United Nations
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
United States Agency for International Development
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Peace Corps
National Security Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Executive departments and agencies shall be responsive to all requests from the National Security Advisor-led interagency review committee for information, analysis, and assistance.
The interagency review shall be completed within 100 days, so that the Atrocities Prevention Board can commence its work within 120 days from the date of this Presidential Study Directive.
BARACK OBAMA
White House Shareables

US Department of Homeland Security directives

US Department of Homeland Security directives

images:  google   yahoo YouTube
spacer

updated Fri. December 5, 2014

-
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday defended the Obama administration's decision to allow millions of illegal immigrants relief from deportation even as Republicans in the U.S.
IMMIGRATION HEAD-TO-HEAD: Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson travels to the House Homeland Security Committee today for the first direct showdown since President Barack Obama made his executive decision on immigration, Seung Min reports.


In addition, Arizona Representative Matt Salmon said he'll float a proposal to insert into the spending bill a provision that would order the Department of Homeland Security not to implement Obama's Nov. 21 immigration ... 21 document temporarily ...
The standard for federal identity - FIPS 201 - was created in 2006 out of the Homeland security Presidential Directive 12 policy that established PIV as the required credential for federal employees and contractors. Aware of the potential offered by ...
"Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who crafted the plan Obama unveiled two weeks ago, plans to fiercely defend it, despite intense criticism from a band of Republicans who have vowed to tie the president's actions to ...
"The DACA memorandum ... is merely an internal directive providing a general policy statement regarding the Department of Homeland Security's current enforcement policies," Berg said, noting the memo setting up the program specifically says DACA status ...


Bill Haslam decides to accept a $9 million state Safety and Homeland Security Department plan to slash 7 percent in funding.
... in Congress over the directive that shields millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations," Politico reports.
Back in 2011, the president issued us a directive to complete $2 billion of performance-based contracts, which included energy savings performance contracts and utility energy service contracts (UESCs), as well as some other contracts that can be ...
Then, House Republicans would vote next week on legislation to fund almost all of the government through September 2015, but use a short-term measure known as a continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security, the agency primarily ...
"The DACA memorandum ... is merely an internal directive providing a general policy statement regarding the Department of Homeland Security's current enforcement policies," Berg said. He pointed out that the memo setting up the program specifically ...
With federal, state and local law enforcement officials across the nation increasingly on edge because of the possibility of potentially calamitous attacks by home grown jihadists, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided in September to board ...
The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security answer questions raised by a new lawsuit, which claims DHS has pushed officials to avoid the deportation of criminal aliens who were convicted of low ...
Obama said in his speech that his actions on immigration are necessary because Congress has failed to act on any legislation regarding immigration.
The Port Authority said in a written statement that, "TSA decides which knives are included on the prohibited items list and issues security directives to all airport operators. The Port Authority routinely audits all restaurant and retail vendors ...
The administration sought a way to include them, but attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and White House examined the legal arguments and decided against it.
The director of the Franklin County Emergency Management and Homeland security agency has been suspended while an investigation determines whether he discriminated against a pregnant employee.


Sitting at his office computer, Mr. Johnson wrote final versions of most of the directives issued on Nov. 20 setting up the ... By failing to address whether or not the President's move actually was legal, the thrust of the Times article is that the ...
President Obama's new executive actions on immigration will help scientists and engineers who were born abroad to find work in the US and stay there.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson will testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on President Barack Obama's executive order aimed at easing U.S.
The following day, the White House issued two Presidential Memoranda, setting forth his plans in greater detail, and adding additional directives to help reform our "broken immigration system," to quote the President. ... In conjunction with Secretary ...
The guidelines specify that cars used by the companies must be covered by automotive liability insurance; drivers must get background checks done by the FBI and Homeland security; and cars used by the companies must get inspections and emissions tests ...
Sheriff Paul Babeu released DHS's newest internal memorandum containing directives on apprehending, detaining and removing illegal aliens, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. In addition to rescinding and ... After blaming a lack of resources ...
The US Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will discontinue a controversial programme that linked the biometric capture of criminal aliens to deportation procedures, with plans to instead use a system that targets only high priority ...
In the directive sent out by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is this wrinkle: immigration officials may use discretion on a case-by-case basis, provided that individuals "present no other factors that, in the Excise of discretion, makes the ...
The CIA's plan comes in response to an Obama administration directive for all federal agencies to propose better systems for managing their email archives by 2016.
Medical personnel recorded the child's weight as 13 pounds, the same weight she had been more than a year earlier when the Department of Human Services returned her to her parents' custody with a diagnosis of failure to thrive and a directive to have ...
The CIA apparently turned one in to comply with the administration's directive, ordering federal agencies to conjure up viable plans to better manage government emails by 2016.
... Obama discussed will be achieved largely via an administrative directive issued by the Department of Homeland Security. The DOJ's advisory opinion on the action was actually addressed to DHS and addresses its proposed actions, not the president's.
Traditionally, Ways and Means members do not serve on any other committees, meaning Meehan would have to give up his slot on House Homeland security, where he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security ...
For example, immigration agents in Los Angeles, she said, appeared to adhere closely to the spirit of Washington directives. However, in some of the ... In a memo from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to immigration employees, there are clear ...
On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson sent a series of directives throughout his agency that spelled out the changes in policy and the process for implementing them.
Senior staffers at the White House, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Homeland Security have been holding regular meetings since February or March of this year to make sure USCIS has a workable plan to handle the onslaught of ...
Whidden has served in senior U.S. government positions on many national interagency Homeland security, public health and international United Nations joint defense projects including the U.S.
A memo by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson - part of a series of documents that address the president's directives - establishes three levels of enforcement priorities when it comes to the detention, apprehension and removal of ...
"Obama is well within his legal power to direct the Department of Homeland Security to steer immigration officials in one direction or another," said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, a law professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law ...
He directed the Department of Homeland Security to focus its deportation efforts on those who have committed crimes, a move, legally known as "prosecutorial discretion," that caused immigrant advocates to cheer.
... recognized for its efforts in cybersecurity education. The National Security Agency and U.S. Department of Homeland Security are designating the seven-school system a National Center for Academic Excellence in Information Assurance and Cybersecurity.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warned would-be migrants Friday that President Obama's action to defer deportations was not an endorsement of illegal immigration, and he pledged to beef up already tight security on the U.S.
The memo, White House officials and a broad array of legal experts assert that the president's directive, announced Thursday night in a prime-time address to the nation, rests on firm legal ground.
One of the common refrains heard on Capitol Hill in recent years has been the notion that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to acquisition. A series of congressional hearings have provided fodder for this ...
A CNN.com story in September cited a 2012 Department of Homeland Security estimate that there were 11.4 million illegal, or unauthorized, immigrants living in the United States, down from 11.5 million in 2011.
This step is being taken to ensure that Fort Benning is in compliance with Homeland security Presidential Directive 12, which requires installations to vet 100 percent of visitors and uncleared contractors prior to entering the installation.
He directed the Department of Homeland Security to focus its deportation efforts on those who have committed crimes, a move, legally known as "prosecutorial discretion," that caused immigrant advocates to cheer.
He directed the Department of Homeland Security to focus its deportation efforts on those who have committed crimes, a move, legally known as "prosecutorial discretion," that caused immigrant advocates to cheer.
IN TODAYS FEDERAL REGISTER: DHS WANTS INPUT ON R&D PLAN - The Department of Homeland Security is asking for public comment on developing a four-year research and development plan for critical infrastructure security and resilience.
Expansion of DACA, the program for DREAMers: Back in 2012, a Department of Homeland Security directive known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) extended deportation relief to those young immigrants who came to the United States ...
According to the document, following Al Baghdadi's directives, ISIS's Treasury Department thoroughly studied the idea and recently presented a comprehensive proposal to the Shura Council, which is said to have approved it.
Repressive laws, executive orders, National and Homeland security Presidential Directives, as well as other measures target America's political enemies.
That became even more of a challenge when a directive from the former Attorney General Eric Holder was sent to Registrars throughout the nation, warning that any voter suppression would be dealt with harshly.

spacer

 


 


schema-root.org

    usa
     government
      branches
       executive
        departments
         homeland security
           directives

Homeland Security:
           ammunition
           coast guard
           customs and border protection
           directives
           drills
           federal protective service
           fema
           fusion centers
           humor
           ice
           no‑fly list
           officers
           projects
           sbinet



schemata copyleft copyleft symbol © 2013 Schema-Root.org