In essence, a policy is a premeditated structure of principles to steer decisions and accomplish rational outcomes. In America, for instance, the national government adopts policies, and it sets protocols that the state and local government ought to adopt to implement the policy (Federal-State Tug Of War: Drawing The Lines In Immigration Overhaul, n.d). The national government sets the policies since they assist in subjective and objective decision-making. These policies may be political, financial, administrative or managerial mechanisms that the national government arranges to arrive at explicit goals.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Immigration Federalism"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

There are various effects that can result from the implementation of a policy, intended or unintended. For instance, the immigration policy is one specific example that requires national state and local interaction. However, on numerous occasions, the immigration policy has invited tension between different levels of government. Struggle has emerged on several occasions regarding the enactment of the immigration policy, and the struggle has given rise to amendments to the policy. Today, immigration policy is a highly divisive policy in the American political arena, and it remains the most critical priority for the U.S.A government.

Today, the Democrats have created a responsibility division for the enforcement of the immigration policy. The tension has largely affected the federal government and the states. In fact, upon close observation in the local law enforcers, there seems to be disorderliness of overlapping and conflicting authorities rather than a systematic national approach to immigration enforcement. There is evidence of tension in the government institutions where each institution has growing involvement in the immigration enforcement. Sometimes back, the immigration policy was solely the responsibility of the national government while the local government played an occasional supportive role when need arose (Immigration Federalism, 2012). However, the trend has changed, and the national government has been training officers and other local law enforcement agencies on how to handle illegal immigrants. In fact, today, local police do assist in immigration issues and enforcement. The immigration policy should facilitate in identifying those who are in the U.S.A illegally. However, the above is not the case as the policy has brought about several complications between the governing authorities. The national, state and the local authority remain divided over who should be bear the legitimate responsibility of enforcing national immigration violations ( Federalism, immigration and deciding who can practice law, n.d.).

The history of the immigration policy dates back to the 18th century. During this period, the American government encouraged open and free immigration where no individual was questioned. However, in the late 18the century, a number of states begun passing immigration laws. The trend resulted in the declaration of the Supreme Court as the responsible body for immigrations responsibilities. Owing to the rise in number of immigrants resulting to poor economic conditions, the Congress began to pass immigration legislation. The policy has raised issues of federalism in that it is not clear exactly who is responsible for enforcing the policy. American national government disperses power to over fifty states, and each state has its local governments.

Each of these governing bodies pushes for additional centralized power. However, federalism has forced the nation to push more power to the states leaving only a small fraction of power under the national government. Argument about the Federal Government’s inability to stop illegal immigration continues to rule then airwaves in the U.S.A states (Archives, n.d). In fact, some States have taken the matter into their hands. Arizona, for instance, has enacted legislations that use state penalties and state police to offer meaningful force to the federal laws already inscribed in the books of law. Debate remains as to who ought to have the final say in regard to immigrant policies.

One of the primary advantages of the policy in the ranging debates is the privileges and the immunities clause that the U.S Constitution guarantees. In the clause, each U.S citizen is entitled to immunities and privileges regardless of the state. It, therefore, becomes apparent that the federal government is responsible for setting up immigration policies. Another pro the concerns the debate on immigrants is that regardless of what the immigrants go through as a form of punishment, they finally become citizens ( The History of Immigration Policies in the U.S). However, it is disadvantageous to the immigrants as they do not qualify for full citizenship. When it comes to disadvantages, lawmakers claim that immigrants do drain the U.S.A’s resources. To support the argument, the debaters’ claim that immigrants come with a lot of baggage that prevents the society from resolving them, hence the immigrants become a security threat owing to hostility (Our Evolving Immigration Policy Publications National Affairs, n.d).

The governing authorities in the U.S.A ought to come to a consensus on who is responsible for enactment of the immigration policy, to bring to an end the tension in the political arena. Alternatively, the lawmakers can set up new immigration policies such as closing all immigration doors to protect the prosperity levels of the American citizen that seems to be dwindling. However, the authorities can only begin to reclaim the American glory once it becomes clear who is responsible for implementing the policy.