The concept, as well as implementation of homeland security, has significantly evolved over the recent years. It was initially a vague statement of mere principles, which became a concrete, defined, professional, as well as the institutionalized field. Besides, it has a cabinet-echelon department linked with various components of its operations. However, despite such stratifications, homeland security in America, which is known to protect citizens, property, as well as interests starting at the international territories and stretching inwardly; is not yet entirely developed, integrated, or secure in its designated roles (Napolitano, 2012). This paper offers a personal opinion why the modern era of the homeland security will never evolve and be integrated fully to become a permanent security system in America.
Homeland security as currently constituted, that is, as a term as well as an actual theater denoting interests, was in partial existence prior to the heinous terror attacks of 2001, September 11. This prompted the then President, His Excellency George to throw into being its concept as well as practice (Kyle, 2016). Even though the initial homeland security was somewhat vague, with its being a subset of the national security, the homeland security has in the past come to be classified and associated with the deterring, noticing, preventing, mitigating, controlling, as well as responding to disasters. Such disasters can harm or pose threats to the country, its citizens, as well as its fabrics at internal or its borders. Therefore, homeland security refers to the preparation for, control of, an outgrowth of the possibility of emergency preparedness, security studies, as well as public administration projects or programs (Kyle, 2016).
Moreover, homeland security is distinct from the national security as the former gives protection of the American citizens and their underlying interests domestically. On the other hand, the latter protects them on an international platform. However, the Constitution, amendments, as well as the body of the law presently in the United States, put forth a substantial problem for the domestic protection as well as prevention efforts. It implies that military is not permitted to be used domestically. Besides, there are strict limitations on how intelligence is collected, disseminated, and used especially on terrorism. Consequently, the internal theater where homeland security operates, based on its definition, deters, or restricts the capability of the federal government to conduct its mission of securing the safety of its citizens within its territories. The result, which is mostly noted, is a state department that stands more so as a patchwork of the vision, interests, missions, as well as the jurisdictions of its underlying constituent branches (DHS, 2015).
Therefore, the full ideation, instantiation, and execution of the homeland security would mean the following: the use of the domestic military, which for many years, the United States has been preventing. The adoption and use of the armed forces or military within the nation's borders has always been criticized by various civic organizations, members of the Congress, political libertarians, religious organizations, civil liberties law firms, and advocates. Hence, the formation and evolution of homeland security would simply imply that it is a domestic military. Moreover, there are fears that the formation or evolution of homeland security would infringe upon various States’ Rights. There are concerns that the full adoption of homeland security would delineate the federal authorities with the states’ rights. This perception or criticism is pegged on the federal government especially when authorities are to be expanded, more so in the adoption of new policies. The adoption of homeland security would imply that the federal government would lose its rights to privacy, especially on information and intelligence reports (Kyle, 2016).
Besides, the full evolvement of the homeland security will infringe upon various civil rights as well as liberties. In the recent past, civil rights, as well as the liberties, have substantially gained prominence in various social arenas and public discussions. Hence, there are fears that fully adopting homeland security can neutralize such gains. Rights of expression, worship, free movements among others would be compromised in the event of the full evolvement of the homeland security. Moreover, in the present socio-political climate, there is a trend among the public in collaboration or tandem with the media, in which they have taken decidedly certain anti-government, anti-law, as well as antiauthority tone. This trend is attributed to the disparity between the country's Supreme Court's use-of-force measures against expectations of the public. Besides, there is unsupportive and a more combative approach geared towards public safety by the security providers. Therefore, the evolution of homeland security becoming a permanent system would infringe on the rights of the public during its enforcement (Kyle, 2016).
Moreover, the evolution of the homeland security would call for extra budgets and other associated costs. Just like the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Congress as well as the public is most likely to be disturbed with budgetary allocations proposed. The reformation and full implementation of the homeland security would mean additional costs on the administrative, miscellaneous, and other human resources costs. For instance, there are projections on the hiring, inducting, and training of extra personnel (DHS, 2015).
In conclusion, the present mix of the homeland security agencies as well as organizations, in which a section is DHS components, is projected to continue posting varied as well as problematic results, specifically within the aspects of protection, detection, prevention, controlling, investigations, or intelligence. Therefore, evolving homeland security to become a permanent system would call for combined efforts, which are more coherent as well as cohesive. Lest, there will be complexity, redundancy, as well as inefficiency as have been the case, in the operations of the homeland security department.
References
Kyle, R. B. (2016). Comprehensive Homeland Security: Developing a Domestic Protection Force for the United States; Pennsylvania, USA. DOI 10.1515/jhsem-2016-0012.
Napolitano, J. (2012). Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2012-2016; Washington D.C., 20528. Department of Homeland Security.
