Intelligence in Homeland Security There

¶ … Intelligence in Homeland Security

There has been an inconsistent progress in the Homeland Security enterprise. The federal government is still pressing for an amnesty strategy to immigration policy, border security, as well as workplace enforcement while undertaking key programs. The initiatives are derailing progress in restoring and fixing credibility and broken borders to U.S. immigration policy. In the meantime, little has been done to handle the increasing challenge of inter-global crimes (U.S. Congress 2010).

Instead of focusing on the need to local and state information sharing, which entails the sharing of information among departments of the federal government, the U.S. should apportion responsibilities and roles among the state, federal government, and the local government based on their resources. The government emphasizing on creating a local domestic intelligence and counterterrorism framework should issue an executive order. Further, this framework should properly articulate how different levels of intelligence should work in order to combat terrorism while ensuring that citizens are prospering and are safe (Studeman, 2002). Government officials have been authorized to work in the interest of the citizen's safety. Citizens, local government, and police powers have been reserved in the constitution. This means that local and state governments have a clear authority of enforcing federal criminal law. Legal experts argue that local and state governments retain inherent authority of enforcing federal civil law. The efforts should not be undermined under any circumstance: instead, administration and the congress should adjust the laws that restrict that can be taken by localities and states (Pincus, 2007).

Funding disaster preparations is vital because it boosts local and state capabilities. As a result, it allows localities and states to work on the same level with the federal government. The need for equality in funding has drawn another approach where integrated agreements require state and federal governments to negotiate as equal shareholders. Some of the decisions made include financial requirements and programmatic requirements. The two parties allocate funds accordingly so that the desired outcomes can be achieved with limited difficulties. Integrated agreements will assist in targeting the maximum federal funding at the greatest risk counties, cities and states where through the addition of more funds, security of citizens will be increased (U.S. Congress 2010). U.S. Department of Homeland Security should uphold on what it considers being right. It should be firm on actions vital to the country's ability to respond to such issues. It should issue a mandate on funding for the activities, interoperable communications and should not ignore its own requirements. As a result, local and state governments will succeed in achieving interoperable communications (Studeman, 2002).