Question

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), is uniquely empowered with border authority, which provides them more latitude to perform interviews and searches than the Fourth Amendment normally allows. Part of the CBP and HSI “doorstep” strategy is the deployment of personnel to overseas locales in order to employ preventative programs at the point of genesis.

The above assumes that international engagement is a prerequisite of border security, premised mostly on the movement of people and goods for the promotion of commerce. It seems to me that a decrease in the reliance on imports and exports—that is, a more isolationist, insular economic policy—would better enhance border security, by lowering the probability that contraband and malevolent actors could cross US borders. If this hypothesis is true, should economic freedom or security strategies dictate US policy?

Answer 1

Yes, economic freedom or security strategies dictate US policy. In other words, there should be economic freedom as well as security of the nation. US policies should govern the boundaries of the countries but should also allow trading among the countries. A little government intervention in international trading is of no harm to the country. This way the country can trade with other countries with the help of government which will also take care of the unexpected invaders.

Trading with countries with out government intervention may invite unexpected terrorist or invaders that may hamper the sovereignty of the country. On the other hand absence of international trading may hamper the economic growth of the country. So, on order to work smoothly, US policies should economic freedom as well as nation's security strategies in it.

If you like the answer please give a thumbs up