Thread: U.S. Border Patrol hiring 1,000 agents

U.S. Border Patrol hiring 1,000 agents


Delcia Lopez
EDINBURG, Tx- Border Patrol agent Carlos Rodriguez looks over the shoulder of Daniel Navarro,26 of McAllen and Ernesto Rodriguez,21, of Roma as they fill out an application for Border Patrol at Work Force Solutions Thursday Jan.07,2016 in Edinburg. Photo by Delcia Lopez dlopez@themonitor.com


Posted: Thursday, January 7, 2016 5:53 pm
LORENZO ZAZUETA-CASTRO | STAFF WRITER

EDINBURG — U.S. Border Patrol officials hosted a recruitment event Thursday as part of a nationwide effort to fill more than 1,000 positions.

The event, which was held at a Workforce Solutions building in Edinburg, was one of a handful of events expected to be held this year to fill about 1,000 U.S. Border Patrol agent positions, Border Patrol spokesman Albert Garza said.

“We are accepting about 265,000 applications and out of those we anticipate hiring close to 1,000 agents,” Garza said. “(Workforce Solutions) allow us to use all their facilities across the Valley. That will allow the applicants to utilize the computers, upload their resume, apply for the job, and we help them through the process of the application.”

John Hershey, spokesman for Workforce Solutions, a local workforce development board that serves Starr, Willacy and Hidalgo counties, said they’ve been working with Border Patrol officials for more than three years now.

In November, Border Patrol officials attended the Red White and You hiring event at the McAllen Convention center — Workforce Solutions’ largest hiring event, Hershey said.

“Border Patrol feels that veterans have the right qualifications to become agents and fill some of their positions,” Hershey said.

The hiring is part of a larger nationwide recruitment effort that began last September and is scheduled through May of this year to hire more agents nationwide.

There are currently 21,370 officers working for Border Patrol nationwide, including more than 3,000 in the RGV sector. In 2006, Congress passed a law making it mandatory for Border Patrol to maintain a minimum of 21,000 agents.

CBP takes applicants between the ages of 18 and 37 and has a mandatory retirement age of 57. This age restriction, along with agents leaving for other agencies, has pushed CBP’s attrition rate to 5 percent, Border Patrol officials said.

Garza said the hiring process can take between eight months to a year, which includes the application process, a background check, a polygraph test, physical fitness tests and a language proficiency test.

The positions would be filled throughout the country, specifically in the Rio Grande Valley area, west Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

Manuel A. Gomez Clarke was one of 30 applicants who applied Thursday at the Workforce Solutions building in Edinburg.

Gomez, who graduated from University of Texas Pan American in 2013, said he also applied months ago to work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection because he wants to find a career that corresponds with his major in criminal justice.

“Doing this work is a good place for me to start in federal law enforcement, so that I can maybe broaden my horizons later on, get some experience, get some work experience,” Gomez said. “It’ll give me an opportunity to travel — to leave the Valley.”

The 30-year-old McAllen native said he also likes the idea of working out in the field on the border and dealing with people in a hands-on way.

“It interests me because I believe in the work they do. I believe in the work they do to protect the country, to protect the borders, keeping contraband out, illegal drugs, illegal guns out of the country,” Gomez said.

The next recruitment event is scheduled for Jan. 12 in Mission at the Workforce Solutions building, 901 Travis St., from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Those interested in applying can visit usajobs.gov to upload a resume and create a profile.

http://www.themonitor.com/news/local...892de8a7b.html

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating Racial Favoritism



Submitted by Carl Horowitz on Thu, 08/25/2011 - 18:08

Advocates of racial/ethnic affirmative action quotas typically travel under the benign-sounding banner of "diversity," so long as it doesn't involve a diversity of opinion. President Obama's executive order last Thursday, August 18 requiring federal departments and agencies to increase hiring and promotion of nonwhite minorities is yet another example. The mandate, Executive Order 13583, is titled, "A Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce." One notices words such as "efficiency" and "accountability" didn't make the cut. That's because over its four decades, "diversity" from the start has been about the allocation of economic rewards through force and guilt. The result most likely will be a federal bureaucracy committed more fully to racial payback.

There is a certain poetic justice here. In May, I wrote a lengthy article for National Legal and Policy Center, "New Report Shows Federal Race Preferences More Entrenched," centering on a then-new report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) documenting the continued growth in federal affirmative action regulations. A previous CRS review, released in 1995, which was the last time Congress gave serious consideration to undoing these rules, revealed the existence of 172 such requirements. That figure had grown to 276 by this spring. Rules governing such program categories as Agriculture, Defense, and Health & Human Services more than ever stipulate that agencies and/or their beneficiaries demonstrate preference toward nonwhites and/or women in hiring, contracts, grants and other benchmark. Affirmative action, in other words, never went way. More to the point, the natural opponents of affirmative action, white "conservatives," did go away; they shied away from challenging its core assumptions.

Affirmative action - or "diversity" - should be seen as a form of what economists call "rent-seeking behavior." That is, it enables certain people to realize benefits through State intervention that would be less obtainable through the market. Supporters claim that blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other "disadvantaged" classes of persons need enforceable mechanisms to compensate for a legacy of blocked opportunity. By establishing mandatory goals and timetables, whether in percentages or absolute numbers, they argue, our society can ensure more equitable group outcomes. Contractual liberty for firms and individuals, as this logic has it, must be subordinate to social equality.

If mandatory affirmative action is at odds with the principles of a free society, why do so few supporters of freedom challenge it? A good short answer is this: Fear. They are fearful of being publicly stigmatized as racist (if white) or backstabbers (if nonwhite). To be known as an enemy of diversity in today's multiculturalism-obsessed America, as a career move, is tantamount to being banished to Siberia. Few want to see their income or social standing go up in smoke over some stray comment, let alone sustained argument, about race that even appears at odds with pronouncements by anointed nonwhite leaders. And formal organizations generally have to play along. My NLPC article this spring argued as much:

Affirmative action operates on a presumption of collective grievance. Even if individuals within a privileged class - e.g., whites - haven't disparaged the rights of nonwhites, they still owe their good fortune to past acts of discrimination imposed by their class. All white success, in this view, in some measure is a legacy of injustice. Affirmative action has succeeded over the years because members of putatively privileged groups, especially white males, have been made to feel a strong sense of guilt. Under this new regime of rights, an employer, contractor or college can't simply be race-neutral in its decisions; it also must take proactive steps to boost its percentage or numerical representation of underserved groups to a level authorities deem appropriate.

The Obama administration, from the President on down, operates on such a presumption. Thus, the long-awaited new executive order was less a question of "if" than of "when." Since federal agencies mandate Diversity, it is only logical, from the administration's standpoint, that they be staffed more heavily by Diversity's natural supporters: nonwhites.

President Obama's Executive Order 13583 is divided into four sections. The first, "Policy," treats the need for racial/ethnic diversity as given:

Our Nation derives strength from the diversity of its population and from its commitment to equal opportunity for all. We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges.

A commitment to equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion is critical for the Federal Government as an employer. By law, the Federal Government's recruitment policies should "endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society." (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)). As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has a special obligation to lead by example. Attaining a diverse, qualified work force is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service...

Wherever possible, the Federal Government must also seek to consolidate compliance efforts established through related or overlapping statutory mandates, directions from Executives Orders, and regulatory requirements. By this order, I am directing executive departments and agencies to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resource strategies. This approach should include a continuing effort to identify

and adopt best practices, implemented in an integrated manner, to promote and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law.

Let's cut through the circumlocution: President Obama is telling every federal agency to raise its percentage of blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other racial minorities or heads will roll. The possibility that the result of this ultimatum would be a less efficient and more politicized federal work force apparently is not a subject fit for discussion.

The second part of the executive order, "Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion and Strategic Plan," lays out a framework for action. While the order does not create a new agency, it would bring together top officials for establishing broad initiatives. These officials would consist of the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the deputy director for management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with the President's Management Council (PMC) and the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The group would be responsible for creating a government-wide plan within 90 days, to be followed by agency-specific plans within 120 days. Evaluation benchmarks would include recruitment, training and promotion.

This is the latest in a series of presidential executive orders proposing a strong dose of affirmative action for the federal bureaucracy. On October 12, 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13171 directed at executive departments and agencies to recruit and advance the careers of Hispanics. Clinton also issued Executive Order 13078 (March 13, 1998 and Executive Order 13163 (July 26, 2000), increasing preference for hiring persons with disabilities. And President Obama on November 9, 2009 issued Executive Order 13518 requiring the establishment of a Veterans Employment Initiative.

Federal officials and lawmakers are positively enthusiastic about the new mandate, Executive Order 13583, especially given that much of its focus is on race. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry stated, "Rather than create a new structure, the president has built upon an existing structure at the very highest level that will get attention and scrutiny." Berry, speaking this past Monday in Boston at the annual conference of Blacks in Government (BIG), termed the executive order "a great leap forward." OPM Deputy Director Christine Griffin puts it this way: "We are trying to say that this is something that should be folded into and a part of everything you do." Black Congressman Danny Davis, D-Ill., proclaimed: "Agencies will pay attention to an executive order. I know it's been a snail's pace, and I'm quick to agree with those who say we have not moved fast enough."

Heads of pro-diversity federal employee organizations are even more strident. Jorge Ponce, co-chairman of the Council of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights Executives, in a recent e-mail, demanded "an action-oriented agenda" to boost Hispanic representation in the Senior Executive Service. "No more councils. No more reports. No more statistics. No more paralysis!" William Brown, president of the African American Executive Association, called President Obama's executive order "a call to arms...for agencies to get serious."

Diversity enthusiasts often cite data to support their sense of entitlement. But the numbers appear to undermine than augment their case. According to the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees in fiscal year 2010 consisted of: 66.2 percent non-Hispanic white; 17.7 percent black; 8.0 percent Hispanic; 5.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; and 1.8 percent American Indian. In other words, 33.8 percent of federal employees were members of a minority group. Now here is a telling statistic from the 2010 Census: Non-Hispanic whites constituted 63.8 percent of the U.S. population, down from 69.5 percent in 2000. Thus, 36.2 percent of all persons last year belonged to a minority. The minority-group federal work force reasonably mirrors the composition of the population as a whole. Blacks, if anything, are overrepresented.

Affirmative action/diversity supporters counter that minorities are well below par at senior-level pay grades. The Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report for fiscal 2010 shows that blacks comprised 6.7 percent of senior-level positions and Hispanics accounted for 4.1 percent. Women, regardless of race, constituted 31.2 percent. Those numbers don't reflect the demographic makeup nationwide. But in and of themselves, they reveal little. Let's go over a few inconvenient reality checks on egalitarian zeal.

First, most senior-level federal employees are career hires or non-career, non-political hires. Civil service protections guard an employee's job from arbitrary political decisions. Moreover, if agency heads have an incentive to convert a senior employee's status, if anything it is from political to civil service, so as to avoid termination by an incoming administration (a practice known in Washington as "burrowing"). These facts act as brakes against racial/ethnic diversity enthusiasm. For even in the Age of Obama, white career civil servants can't simply be pushed out of their jobs to make way for less experienced nonwhites - the uproar among federal employees would be deafening, if only out of self-interest. The hiring of nonwhites and women, insofar as it fulfills affirmative action requirements, typically occurs only after slots become vacant, whether through job change or retirement. Attrition, by its nature, is a slow process. One does not simply demand action and cry "foul" when desired results don't quickly materialize. Even assuming that boosting the presence of nonwhite minorities is somehow desirable, it would take several years, and more likely at least a decade, even to approach diversity goals.

Second, senior-level federal positions typically require a highly specialized set of skills requiring a graduate or other advanced degree, plus a sizable number of years of work experience at progressive levels of responsibility. Anyone who ever has applied for even a middle-level federal job knows the bar is set high. Affirmative action won't necessarily deliver results. Example: formal education. Blacks and Hispanics as a whole have lower levels of higher education attainment. Whereas about 28 percent of all adults age 25 or older in the U.S. held at least a bachelor's degree in 2009, this figure was only 17 percent for blacks and 13 percent for Hispanics. Even if graduation rates across the races could be equalized overnight, it still would take years to achieve diversity goals. A job applicant, however qualified on paper, as a matter of course doesn't simply jump into a high-level federal post at age 25 or even 30.

Third, background checks are required for virtually every professional-level position within the federal government. And they have become more thorough in the decade since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, especially in agencies that deal with national security. A job applicant can expect to have his or her professional and personal life thoroughly vetted by investigators. Here is a partial listing of the information that federal job-seekers can expect to be gathered: criminal record, bankruptcies, credit reports, education transcripts, military record, sex offender lists, employment records, employment references, character references, family member interviews, drug test records, property ownership and state licensing board records. This doesn't even include the extensive paperwork that must be completed before an investigation begins. The comprehensive nature of background checks assures that even a lot of good applicants get weeded out. Much black "underrepresentation" can be attributed to the prospect of a criminal background check alone. As Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald has noted in scrupulous detail, blacks, though comprising only an eighth of the U.S. population, account for far higher percentages of arrests for violent crimes. It would be dangerous folly to bend the rules here just to achieve desired statistical outcomes.

Affirmative-action bean counters aren't pondering these and other factors (e.g., the limited English-speaking proficiency of many foreign-born and even U.S.-born Hispanics). To the contrary, they are cautioning that the executive order is merely "a first step." With Barack Obama as president and Eric Holder as attorney general, these enthusiasts see their long-awaited moment at hand. These activists are obsessed with boosting the nonwhite portion of the federal bureaucracy, especially in supervisory positions, where hiring is done. Nonwhites, once hired, would be virtually impossible to fire. The result would be a government far more accountable to racial/ethnic politicians and shakedown artists than to the general public.

Such a mindset is contrary to the public interest because it diminishes the importance of merit as the primary basis for hiring, retention and promotion. Character traits that make for good employees - competence, flexibility, punctuality, integrity and intellect - would matter less. But the diversity obsession is counterproductive for another reason: It assumes government is an employer of the first resort. In this view, a given federal agency owes an applicant a job because that person belongs to a favored race or ethnic group. Common sense would hold that the result will be an enlarged and less accountable government. That's something few can afford at a time of record-high deficits. But President Obama is a man who knows his political constituents. And he knows they're high on Diversity.


New Report Shows Federal Race Preferences More Entrenched

http://www.eremedia.com/ere/minority...ace-in-hiring/

Discrimination against Whites in Federal Employment

Kevin MacDonald on July 14, 2011

Pat Buchanan’s recent column (“Black America versus Obama?“) has some amazing stats on Black employment by the federal government:

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

When the Obama administration suggested shutting down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants whose losses of $150 billion have had to be made up by taxpayers, The Washington Post warned, in a story headlined, “Winding Down Fannie and Freddie Could Put Minority Careers at Risk,” that 44 percent of Fannie employees and 50 percent of Freddie’s were persons of color.

There is no way that these percentages for Black employment could not happen without discrimination against Whites. I should think a lawsuit would be in order.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...al-employment/