I can’t put this in GD because I’m not a skilled debater and I really don’t have a position except to say that I think it would be a good idea. And, I can’t defend that idea, either.
So, I’m curious: Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security? I don’t even care why anyone would or wouldn’t think it a good idea but feel free to state reasons if you are so inclined.
Fixing title and moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
LouisB: This is an aside from what I think could be an interesting OP, but as Czarcasm’s action should tell you, you shouldn’t necessarily be afraid of posting to GD just because you feel you can’t support or debate your position. I know why you were reluctant, but you do have a reasonable, defensible position, and you seem to want a good faith effort to actually DEBATE… OTOH, maybe that’s BECAUSE you were reluctant to go into GD.
Just use your best judgment, and you usually won’t go wrong. If it feels like something people can discuss/debate reasonably, go ahead and put it here, IMO. (Mods, feel free to correct me if I got something wrong here.)
He’s doomed! Doomed, I tell you! 
Actually, this type of question is perfectly suited for Great Debates. Just jump in whenever you have a point to make or a question to ask, and watch where it goes.
Why? Do you have a problem with the concept or with the execution?
I find the concept to be ill-used and badly explained to the public at large. Vague powers for a vague threat, an extremely ill-thought-out name(who didn’t think “Fatherland” when they heard “Homeland”?), and a Big Brother advertising campaign. What’s not to love?
Disband them, publish the names of every person employed by them, and offer a bounty.
I didn’t. Still don’t. And when I saw that thought here for the first time I just shrugged.
You have never seen that comparison between the two terms before?
I’m not fond of the executive branch having any policing powers. At the moment that might not be too great of an issue, but I would be worried about an expanding scope of power.
My primary issue with them at the moment is that they seem pretty inept and, indeed, rather big brotherish in their approach and love of posting their logo on everything. The idea of dis-separating various government groups so that they can work together more effectively, on the other hand is a fine idea given the right execution.
Not here in this thread. Here on the Dope. In the past. Here is where I first heard it and I thought it said more about those making the comparison than those that came up with the name.
Honestly, I didn’t. But I did think “Motherland,” and its associations with the USSR. For example, this statue. There are other Soviet uses at Wikipedia’s Motherland disambiguation page. Note how it offers “homeland” as one translation for “motherland.”
If I had to think of a way to fight a small, fragmented group of unconventional guerilla fighters who could strike anywhere at anytime I would suggest piling one convoluted bureaucracy on top of another. Also, it creates thousands of jobs, right? So it’s all good.
Both.
You’ll get no objection from me. 
Nothing really to add; I just wanted to say that that is a kick-ass statue.
Well, the only way to resolve this would be to jump back in time to 1908 when Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a Presidential appointee, hired a permanent staff of agents which he dubbed the Bureau of Investigation.
I forget what happened to them, though. I think they eventually disbanded to pursue solo careers.
Um, what do you think an executive is for? Who should run the EPA? Who should enforce the Clean Air Act? Who should run the FBI?
Now, if you mean that you want professionals & careerists to police rather than Presidential appointees, that’s another issue. Maybe we need policing under some other authority than political appointees. But it is an executive job by its nature.
The best argument for this is that the DHS is basically filling a redundant role to the CIA, except that it unifies both domestic and foreign intelligence under one roof. Increasing the cooperation between the FBI and CIA would be better than having a DHS.
I’m not sure I want the FBI and the CIA unified in any way. One is supposed to investigate outside the U.S., the other in. Too much vague “cooperation” allows the CIA to operate inside the U.S. via their good buddies over in the FBI.
So, the only two coherent arguments I’ve heard against the Department of Homeland Security are: 1) the name is creepy and 2) the government shouldn’t have the power to enforce laws.
On the other hand, the whole reason for establishing the Department of Homeland Security boils down to: 1) OMG!! 9-11let’sdosomethingand QUICK!!!
I think the establishment of DHS did a lot of bad things – FEMA was neutered once transferred to a different place on a bureaucratic map, billions more spent to rearrange office space here in DC leading to no improvement in services to the public, and so on. But I don’t see how rearranging government yet again would improve that.
Besides that, I’m not scared of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s good reason to be concerned about what the CIA and FBI are up to these days… but who is the boogeyman in DHS? The Coast Guard? TSA? The color coded terror chart? On the chart that has a Y axis of malevolence and an X axis of capability, the component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security are dots right next to the US Postal Service.