Leaders from Texas State have on several occasions called for a quick fix of border security issue and the immigration system. The approval of the $800 million by Abbot Gregg, the new governor of Texas, is the epitome of their concerted effort to solve the problem for good. The problem with the security border is not about money but rather a problem of the security system.
A similar move by Rick Perry led to the purchase of six new gunboats with the ability to fire 900 rounds per minute and move at very high speeds. Ironically, the boats that cost the state $580,000 each were most of the time docked. The cost of the six gunboats combined, though smaller than what Texas intends to spend, did not yield any positive results.
Reasonable people should build their judgment upon past experiences to realize that spending more money will not bring positive results. According to Texas public safety agency, a secure border is one that interdicts all people, contrabands, and drugs but the current situation is far from this definition. Adam Isacson, a longtime border analyst, says that “Even the most secure sectors of the border still have thousands of people get through,” an indication that the $800 million is not a solution.
The problem is not money but accountability. Money put on border patrol is enough, but the problem is with performance evaluation. Texas has failed to follow up to ensure money mete out for border security yields results. The Republican lawmakers stripping out of the section that would demand monthly updates and crime data from an oversight board to be formed is a repeat of the same mistake.
Governor Gregg Abbott should rethink his joke on Twitter that, “Dallas Cowboys. More porous than Texas border” as it might happen with the $800 million. The problem is with the security system and not funding, and until the lawmakers realize it, the border security problem remains unsolved. Otherwise, the issue of security is best solved by the federal government.
I will admit, border security isn’t a topic I easily place special interest to but I found myself nodding and agreeing along to the post's key points on the subject.
ReplyDeleteProviding Governor Gregg's approval of a $800 million bill from the start I feel was a good choice. In exposing the reader to large sums of capital the information effectively catches their attention. Also, adding the spending of useless gunboats by Rick Perry was another good illustration of the states misguided notion over efficient border security. Both details do well to supporting the claim of the piece.
"The problem with the security border is not about money but rather a problem of the security system."
Reviving the old school saying that history repeats itself and that one must learn from previous mistakes, proves to be useful in initiating a reasonable solutions to the re-occurring border security problems. Most, if not all readers can easily connect to these notions, it also plays a part in linking the writers recommendation over what should be done in order to advance the issue. Which is, that if Texas only kept an organized record of all their previous attempts and set up an official overseer over the data to advise on the matter, there would be more success seen and less spending done.
Moreover, I didn't get the sense of priority I would have expected from such a controversial topic as this one. Choosing to use more precised words such as, "reckless" or "thoughtless" in the title would have fused better, I believe, with the whole post. Also, adding evidence of why the government keep. trying to solve this problem with the same tactics over and over again would have been interesting to know. For example answering questions like, "Who benefits from border construction or the consumption of weaponry? Who's really pulling the strings over the issue?". Another thing that the post would have benefited from is the explanation of why this issue is important to the reader. This could be achieved by including the percentage funding takes away from the states budget which is compensated from civilians.
Overall the post was well organized, flowy and had a solid composition. There wasn't any confusion over identifying the problem and solution. In saying that, covering the questions I proposed in my fourth paragraph would give the post a stronger foundation to support its claim.