The combined efforts of the agencies constituting the Department of Homeland Security in addressing the safety needs of American citizens have a predominant impact on the immigration system. In other words, they determine the opportunities of individuals to enter the country and bring economic benefits caused by these events. However, the concerns expressed by presidents over time led to the emergence of dubious positivity towards the people willing to contribute to different fields (Felter et al., 2021). The governmental initiatives are favorable from the perspective of taking care of the U.S. residents while being detrimental to the fair treatment of newcomers when the considerations of possible discrimination are not taken into account.
The main reason why this area presents numerous challenges to the authorities is the possibility of neglecting personal circumstances when developing a political course as per the requirements of homeland security. It means that individuals applying for asylum might have fewer chances to avoid persecution by using this method (“Lecture notes: Regulation of immigration, border security, and the right to travel,” n.d.). They are the most vulnerable category of people eligible for American citizenship, whereas, as follows from Psalm 146:9 (n.d.), ” The Lord watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow.” Hence, the excessive restrictions, when implemented against them, seems an inhumane practice. Therefore, the ongoing debate revolves around the need to maintain a balance between the country’s contradictory interests, including economic benefits and national security disrupt the functioning of the immigration system in its current state.
The described dilemma is connected to the rapidly evolving political environment and, consequently, continuous shifts in requirements and opportunities for newcomers in the United States. In this case, the presidency of Donald Trump and Joe Biden serve as examples of these conditions’ impact on individuals. These leaders’ decisions were quite the opposite since the former’s idea was to impose new restrictions on immigration, whereas the latter’s focus is on the necessity to gain economic and other benefits provided by these people (Felter et al., 2021). As a result, the lack of unity of measures implemented throughout the country over a short period of time brought confusion to separate states. This phenomenon exacerbated the problem by the absence of clarity and, consequently, safety.
From this point of view, exercising control over immigration processes while guaranteeing their correlation with homeland security policies is a task that cannot be addressed without modifying the general procedures. In this way, an optimal solution is to find common grounds for Congress to have more power over this area instead of delegating these needs to the executive or judicial branch (Felter et al., 2021; Dwyer, 2014). Indeed, the issue with reaching an agreement on these matters is detrimental to both citizens and newcomers. To resolve it, introducing new legal provisions is a better way to guarantee that the decisions of presidents do not contradict one another due to relying on the same laws instead of separate acts.
In conclusion, the control over the borders of the United States is a multi-faceted challenge as it is connected to both the immigration system and national security. These two areas do not have anything in common when it comes to discussing uniform measures aimed at everyone’s well-being. Therefore, the debate connected to the identified issues cannot be effectively continued without linking the varying interests of involved individuals and entities. This claim means that preventing terrorism and guaranteeing asylum and protection of all people regardless of background should not adversely affect each other’s effectiveness.
References
Dwyer, T. P. (2014). Legal issues in homeland security: U.S. Supreme Court cases, commentary, and questions. Looseleaf Law Publications.
Felter, C., Renwick, D., & Cheatham, A. (2021). The U.S. immigration debate. Council on Foreign Relations.
Lecture notes: Regulation of immigration, border security, and the right to travel. (n.d.) [Word Document].
Psalm 146:9. (n.d.). Bible Gateway.