Both authors look at the concept of human security in their literatures with suggestions quantifying the lack of authentic human security through a negative indicator of human insecurity. The problem in both articles has been identified in relation to the basic human survival difficulties that both refuges and those living in foreign lands have to face when in search for security. While seeking for security and basic survival, these authors point to the fact that foreigners seek survival on foreign hand-outs for basic survival but these hand-outs are non-dignifying and unsustainable. I think, if the basic needs of a community are dependent on international agencies for aid then they would be going against human security principles just as noted in Chimni’s and Loescher articles. Such communities do not lay grounds for long term developments and so they compromise on the psycho-social criteria of community participation and identity.

There is also a significant relationship between the two articles with a discussion on governance. I also think that refugees and asylums are as a result of bad governance. Bad governance is the cause of all domestic problems and it is bad governance that places heavy burdens on the international society to safeguard asylums and refugees. But when these refugees flee to a different country, whose responsibility is it to provide for the added population into the host country? This is a similar question addressed by both authors which I believe is essential in making us understand where provisions for refugees and asylums come from. There is no continent that is immune to the problem of asylums and refugees with more international organizations such as UNHCR feeling the strain of providing to refugees, who will now stand up to support refugees and immigrants? This is equally another significant question addressed by these authors.

In Loescher’s view visionary and immigration policies could help curb and reduce the movement of immigrants or result in easing of asylums or even result in a balance of the current pressure in asylums. I think their view on visionary policing and immigration could be a positive switch to look into areas where there are human trafficking, linkages and human smuggling and not only immigration and asylum pressures. I think what we should be working at or working towards at this time is the revitalization of the obsolete convention administration that would preserve its centrality but reinforces it with more staunch policies. Refugee and immigration law is dynamic and not static and therefore it should contain a body of principles that can be adjusted in the event of international challenges.

The international organizations such as UNHCR strategies to promoting such a development should first rest on the understanding that refugee protection is the most significant while meeting the needs of threatened and vulnerable communities comes second. Meeting the needs of refugees and immigrants should be addressed within an approach that competing interests of third parties will not affect directly the status quo of refugees. Ultimately, the refugee protection agencies and all international agencies in charge of protecting immigrants and refugees as well as those living in asylums should design a regime that balances appropriately all the interests, rights and expectations of host communities with the guest communities. UNHCR regards these approaches are legal, moral and a mandatory responsibility that foster independence in communities.