How does federalism affect U.S. border security efforts?

400 words/ 3 sources

course syllabus:

Border security is a crucial part of our country’s homeland security efforts; however, many do not realize its complexity. Securing the nation’s borders is a multifaceted and complex task comprised of often seemingly competing objectives that cross over multiple homeland security domains, as well as jurisdictions. This course examines the United States’ approach to securing its borders within the larger context of homeland security. Students will analyze our nation’s border security strategies, policies, agencies, coordinating structures, and the associated legal and jurisdictional authorities through which border security is effectuated. Students will also assess the various internal and external threats and hindrances to securing America’s borders that still persist.

 

How Federalism Affect U.S Border Security Efforts

Federalism affects the effectiveness of U.S border security. Notably, there is poor cooperation and integration between these different levels of governments when it comes to the border security mission. Poor intergovernmental cooperation is depicted by the former Trump Administration. This era was defined by conflicting border security policies between the federal and state governments. The U.S-Mexico border has been a source of security concerns that the Trump administration has promised to address, partly by constructing a wall. However, the request for wall funding from Congress stalled, with Congress only allocating $1.375 billion for border security, which was adequate to fund just slightly over 50 miles of wall barriers (Haslett, 2019).  In response to the failure to secure the amount requested for the project, $8 billion, President Trump declared a national emergency to combat national security threats at the southern border (Haslett, 2019). President Trump argued that the U.S was facing the invasion of drugs, gangs, and people (Haslett, 2019). However, this move was oppossed by sixteen states which filed suit against it (The Guardian, 2019). These states included California, Colorado, Delaware, and Connecticut. In the suit, these states contended that the emergency declaration indicated a clear disregard for separation of powers separation and that the president had steered the country to a constitutional crisis of his own making (The Guardian, 2019)).

Further, in the April of 2018, Trump signed a directive to deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. The goal was to counter the rising illegal activity on the southern border. According to the directive, dangerous gang activity, illegal drugs, and illegal immigration threatened national safety and undermined the rule of law (CBS News, 2018). This directive again met major opposition from several states, including Nevada, Oregon, and California. These states declined to contribute their guards to the National Guard that was to be deployed in this mission (CBS News, 2018).

These two instances indicate the conflict between the federal government and state governments on border security efforts. The conflict undermines an objective resolution of border security concerns. This resolution can only be achieved through a consensus between federal and state governments on the role that each level of government should play in addressing border security challenges. Besides, the conflict extends to immigration enforcement. Before 1996, the federal government had firm control of the enforcement of immigration laws before their devolution later on leading to states gaining the mandate to enforce these laws to some extent (Varsanyi et al., 2012). However, immigration enforcement varies across different local jurisdictions. Additionally, many large cities are opposed to partnerships with the federal government in immigration enforcement (Varsanyi et al., 2012). Lack of common standards of enforcement across jurisdictions weakens the efficiency of addressing border security matters.