Leaders of Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, Zapata Sheriff Sigi Gonzalez & Hudspeth County Arvin West (r)/Tom Barry |
(Part of a Border Lines
series on outsourcing border security in Texas.)
“There can
be no homeland security without border security.” That’s dogma in Texas, and
repeated constantly by Governor Rick Perry and DPS Director Steve McCraw.
But it hasn’t always been the official line about homeland security in
Texas.
Before Steve McCraw joined the governor’s staff in August 2004 as
homeland security chief and head of the Governor’s Department of Emergency
Management (TDEM), homeland security strategy in Texas wasn’t much different
than other states that developed first responder and counterterrorism
strategies in concert with the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Gov. Perry open the first Texas Homeland Security Strategy
Plan (January 2004) noting that “Texas has used the national strategy
as a model for developing a statewide plan,” explaining that President Bush
(who preceded Perry as Texas governor) had called on states and local
governments to “implement compatible security strategies.”
The 2004 homeland security strategy of Texas had a clear focus on working
with the federal government to prevent foreign terrorism and to respond to
homeland disasters.
There is no mention of immigrants or criminal aliens, no talk of the
threat of narcoterrorism, drug cartels, or transnational gangs, and no
discussion of border crime, spillover violence, or narcotics flows.
The collaborative, we’re-all-in-it-together tone of the 2004 homeland strategy
plan is startling in retrospect, now that the governor and McCraw have come to
favor a go-it-alone, blame-Washington posture.
It’s worth quoting from Gov. Perry’s introduction to the security plan to
observe the contrast in focus and tone between then and now. Since then there
has also been less talk of the need to cooperation and a new confrontational
posture.
Since 2004 Texas has set out to develop its own homeland security
strategies, particularly in intelligence and border security, that run parallel
to similar federal operations, albeit tapping federal grants to underwrite
these Lone Star border security initiatives.
The governor wrote that “recognizing that state and local governments play important roles
in these efforts, the national plan challenges us ‘to develop interconnected
and complementary systems that are reinforcing rather than duplicative.’”
“Our first goal must be to do everything within our power to
prevent a terrorist attack,” wrote Perry. “That is why our effort to coordinate
communication among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies is so
vital.”
The first homeland security strategy plan did have sections on intelligence
and border security. Yet, like the entire document, both sections focused on
foreign terrorism.
The objective of local and state intelligence, as set out in the “Intelligence
and Warning” section, was to help prevent a terrorist attack by providing alerts
based mainly on the “receipt, analysis, and dissemination of criminal
intelligence.” There was no mention of fusion centers, joint intelligence
centers, border crime mapping, or ambitious data mining projects.
The central focus of the border security section was increased monitoring
traffic through sea and land ports-of-entry, regarded then as the most likely
entry points for
The page-long section on border security – compared with the five pages
devoted to protecting critical infrastructure and four pages to emergency
response – includes discussion of response to disasters or terrorist attacks on
Texas sea ports.
With respect to the vast international border with Mexico, the strategy
plan makes no mention of “sealing the border,” as is the current commitment,
but instead addresses the connection between homeland security and border
security through training plans to secure border petroleum installations. The
plan also mentions that the governor’s office launched a $1.5 million Border
Security Intelligence Network.
The 2004 strategy plan concludes with mention of the state’s cosponsoring
of a Border Terrorism Conference. In marked contrast to the deeply anti-Mexican
tone current border security strategizing by the governor’s office, this
conference brought together U.S. and Mexican officials.
The first homeland security strategy plan in Texas may be said to
represent one of the last times that homeland security and border security policies
in Texas weren’t manifestly politicized issues.
It was also before the governor’s office began outsourcing the new border
security, intelligence, and data-exchange operations launched from his office.
It was prior, too, to the appointment of Steve McCraw as chief of the governor’s
homeland security office.
In 2004-2005 the national attention began to turn from foreign to
domestic issues. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan no longer dominated the
national news, and public and policymaker alarm about the foreign terrorist
threat was fading. The previously widespread consensual support for President
Bush’s “Global War Against Terrorism” was also eroding.
At the same time, immigration and immigrant-rights advocates were
starting to mobilize in support of a comprehensive immigration reform. But the
grassroots backlash against illegal immigration was deepening, and immigration
restrictionist institutes in Washington began seeing widening support for their
“enforcement-first” and immigration-crackdown positions.
In Texas, conservative politicians, like Sen. John Cornyn together with
an array of white, non-border Texas Republican representatives, became national
voices for get-tough policies on immigration and the border. The creation of
the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition in the spring of 2005 also signaled the
emergence of immigration enforcement and border security as popular political
issues.
Facing a reelection vote in November 2006, Perry in 2005 began to bolster
his border security credentials.
Starting in 2005 homeland security and border security for the state of
Texas were no longer issues considered mostly in the implementation of
Department of Homeland Security grants.
Newly identified homeland security threats as illegal immigrants, illegal
drugs, and border crime became central to political campaign strategies.
Led by the governor’s office, these issues also drove an array of
multimillion dollar intelligence, data-sharing, and border security projects,
mostly outsourced to private firms such as Northrop Grumman, APPRISS, and
Abrams Learning and Information Systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment