Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has suggested hiring and sending 500 additional state troopers to the border. But Col. Steve McCraw of the Department of Public Safety told the House Committee on Emerging Law Enforcement Issues yesterday that it would take four years - two biennia - to deploy 500 troopers to the border. And before that happens, the agency presently has 243 vacant positions it needs to fill in addition to the 500. That number is expected to drop to 187 after the next cadet class graduates in June.
McCraw said he believes the agency can fill the 187 (though he was unable to fill budgeted trooper positions in the last several budgets), but the 500 troopers for the border would take "two biennia" to fill, he estimated. He hoped the agency could achieve 250-300 more troopers at the border by the end of the coming biennium (2017), but it would take until the end of the next (2019) to fully staff out 500 troopers at the border.
None of our politicians are saying publicly that the 500 troopers won't happen for four years. I wonder if the border surge will still be a thing by then? Will anyone really care after Barack Obama leaves office and isn't around to accept blame? Does this mean the National Guard will remain deployed until the rollout of 500 new troopers at the border is complete? ¿Quien sabe?
To achieve these lofty employment goals, the agency has implemented a "lateral hire" program that has some members of the Sheriff's Association unhappy, the committee was told. Cops with TCLEOSE certification can be hired on at DPS with only an 8-week stint at the academy instead of the 20 weeks required of regular cadets. The Sheriffs worry this will "decimate" their staffs because DPS pays more than most counties and their best officers are tempted to shift allegiances, particularly along the border where officers wouldn't have to move. McCraw was unapologetic, declaring that while it's "not our goal to decimate or irritate ... the Sheriff's Association in any way," it was his responsibility to quickly hire as many qualified individuals as he could and this was the quickest way to do it (read: "screw you local departments, we're taking your best guys").
McCraw also gave a metric I hadn't heard on the (in)effectiveness of DPS border cameras, estimating they'd generated about 113,000 "detections" of illegal crossings along the border and 53 "apprehensions" which generated 110 tons of drugs seized. That's a trivial rate given DPS' touting of its border mission as an unmitigated success. McCraw thinks the apprehension rate will improve if the Legislature would pay for "aviation assets" (read: drones) which would automatically deploy to the scene when cameras identified a border incursion. But of course, people still must be apprehended on the ground, so there's a functional limit to how effective "aviation assets" can be.
Coupled with downward reassessments of the amount of drugs seized and the extent to which DPS' surge reduced illegal border crossings, these paltry metrics on apprehensions attributable to border cameras contribute to a picture of ineffectiveness and overstated achievement from DPS' much ballyhooed surge. Who really thinks these activities are worth doubling down on with an additional $815 million in the next biennium?
One other interesting moment from McCraw's testimony piqued my attention: He said DPS existed since 1823, which would date it from 13 years before Texas' independence from Mexico! Usually one hears DPS' history dated to 1935; the Texas Rangers ostensibly date to Texas' pre-revolution Mexican era (their supposed predecessors, whose direct connection to the modern force is IMO tenuous at best, were mercenaries dubbed the milicia nacional by Stephen F. Austin, with the name Texas Rangers coined in 1874), so that's probably the reference. The lengthening of the organization's historical legacy in many ways typified all the agency's recent pronouncements, with every statement exaggerated at the margins and falling apart in the face of any serious, independent fact checking.
If this border surge policy were truly valid, they wouldn't have to spin the facts so hard to try to justify it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
18 comments:
Thanks for sharing. It's disturbing that they are letting those with just 8 weeks at the academy as opposed to 20 at DPS. Hopefully this red flag will get noticed by the public.
First they tried to shut immigrants out of the country. That didn't work. Now they're trying to shut them out of benefits. We'll see how that turns out.
I am definitely NOT an open borders guy, but this sure is a mess. I don't know the answer. I hope someone else does.
Prison Doc
"If this border surge policy were truly valid..."
It's lawless, that's what it is.
Three simple steps would solve this problem. Its not a difficult problem. The thing is, no one wants it solved. One side wants them here for political reasons (votes), the other for economic reasons (cheap labor).
Step 1: Enforce laws against hiring illegal imigrants. This would eliminate jobs which is the incentive to come here illegally and, without employment, many would go back to where they came from.
Step 2: Determine how may foreign workers are really needed and establish a program to issue visas for that number. Give those currently in the country illiegally 6 months to apply for these visas.
Step 3: Round up what is left and deport.
This is not the first time they've done the 8 week academy. What's the big deal now and not then?
You'd have to ask the Sheriff's Association, 2:52, but my guess would be the difference in volume of poached employees is a factor.
@2:40, that would be great if there weren't laws governing immigration, deportation, etc., that are different from your 1,2,3. Try to propose something that could actually occur in the real world, where it's quite clear the governing statutes aren't about to change anytime soon and solutions must operate within the existing framework, not an imaginary fantasy one that exists only as a hypothetical.
But all my boys at the Silver Spur support my hypothetical solutions.
Isn't it rather obvious that Steve (quick draw) McGraw gets coached by Perry? The tactic is to bombard with constant bullshit in hopes that no one fact checks anything. This guy embellishes so much he makes Brian Williams look like the poster child of truthfulness.
DPS did have only one eight week academy before this. Then they realized how bad the applicants really were.
Anonymous 5:55 - right on target. He's going to break the state budget and not get anything of substance accomplished. I miss the old DPS directors who were, for the most part, were honest and competent.
10:28 you say that but don't give any data. Does that crop include the roadside finger wave crew or are you just generalizing?
I am always amazed at how easily the Texas voters fall for this game of "Thimblerig"...cheap labor and prisons for profit will keep the legislators swaying on any decisions to budget real change in the system. They change their minds with the political winds of the day and the voters...they are just the "marks" in the con game of Texas politics.
Grits said:
"@2:40, that would be great if there weren't laws governing immigration, deportation, etc., that are different from your 1,2,3. Try to propose something that could actually occur in the real world, where it's quite clear the governing statutes aren't about to change anytime soon and solutions must operate within the existing framework, not an imaginary fantasy one that exists only as a hypothetical."
You missed my first comment - the laws are what they are because neither side wants the problem to be solved. If they did, they could simply enact the laws to do those things that would almost eliminate the problem. Yet, the democrats want the illegals legalized so they can vote and Republicans want them here to provide cheap labor. As long as that is the case, you can talk about the problem till you're blue in the face, but if those in power don't want it solved, it won't be.
I didn't miss it, 10:30, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. We live in the real world. Nobody gets to reinvent immigration law from scratch, which would be required to implement your suggestions. So I don't take them seriously because they are, in fact, not serious. They're venting, which is unconstructive at best and toxic at worst if you can't see past it to engage with people who disagree with you or have differing interests instead of demonizing them and pretending nobody but you and people who agree with you have valid views.
Also, if "no one wants" the problem solved, maybe - just maybe - it's not that big a problem. Just a thought.
I suppose they could sponsor some immigrants to be Troopers. What's the difference given the vast separation in their present ideology with everyone else in the country?
You're babbling, 1:11, that was completely incoherent.
Good for TXDPS. The county where I work has not given a pay raise in the last 8 consecutive years.
Post a Comment