It remains factual that the United States continues to face the never-ending problem of insecurity given its conflicts with other nations since the historical world wars and the fact that it emerged as an economic and political superpower after the end of the cold war. The economic superiority aftermath of these historical events has attracted citizens of other countries, especially from comparatively poor countries into America as asylum seekers in spite of other reasons they give as a justification for their immigration. This development has emerged as a national security issue considering that some of the affected states have been associated with individual and state-sponsored criminal conduct to the extent of persecution. Government officials, other stakeholders in governance including ordinary United States citizens and notable opinion shapers have proposed certain solutions to the immigration problem vis-à-vis American national security, with the case of the current caravan immigration from Honduras and other countries through Mexico being cases in point.
One such proposed solution is to allow immigrants from these countries to apply for asylum through the official channels upon entering the United States. Presently, the United States Constitution allows citizens of other countries to apply for asylum regardless of where or how they crossed the border.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second solution to the problem is to establish designated entry points and allow immigrants to apply for asylum from these official entry points. This approach is in response to the laxity in border control by the United States border patrol due to insufficiency of the needed financial and human resources, besides the increasing destruction of the border fence to create illegal entry points as typified in the case of the United States-Mexico border and San Diego-Tijuana border given escalating border porosity in these areas.
While both solutions have worked successfully on certain occasions, the reality is that allowing immigrants to apply for asylum in designated entry points is a comparatively better option. There are certain reasons for this end. One of such reasons stems from the fact that the border control department is understaffed and under-resourced to effectively combat the problem of illegal entry as already stated. Even more concerning is that the illegal immigration network to the United States is complex and continues to evolve as mitigation measures continue to be formulated.
Immigration challenges such as these necessitate the need for appropriate panaceas from the federal, state and local governments. As a key facet of the United States government, the federal government is tasked with certain responsibilities in protecting the country from illegal immigration (Bowman & Kearney, 2017) . One of such responsibilities is the formulation of immigration laws through its legislative branch. Beyond their enactment, these laws need to be constantly revisited and revised to cope with the occurring changes across immigration. Equally, the executive branch of the federal government is responsible for ensuring illegal immigrants such as those entering the United States through the borders are expatriated or incarcerated in accordance to the laws stipulated in the United States Constitution in coordination with the judicial branch (Bowman & Kearney, 2017) .
However, the execution of these responsibilities needs the collaboration and cooperation of the state and local governments. Contextually, with particular immigration issues common within certain states bordering the country such as Mexico and San Diego, proper mitigation measures are best realizable with the involvement of state and local departments officials for reasons various folds including first-hand information regarding emerging immigration trends and ease of extradition and incarceration ( Bowman & Kearney, 2017).
Reference
Bowman, A. O. M., & Kearney, R. C. (2017). State and local government . Ontario: Nelson Education.
