Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Recently Flagged Comments

Recently flagged comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-01-26 12:53 PM

When I went into the Border Patrol in 1992, minimum requirements were 4 years of a combination of pertinent education or qualifying experience. The Border Patrol Academy was 17 weeks. Following academy graduation was 6 months of structured field training including 1 day per week of classroom post-academy training reinforcing law, operations, and Spanish. A Conduct and Efficiency (C&E) evaluation was done every two weeks to track trainees' performance and progress. A final examination was given at the 10 month mark, after which you still had to complete two more months riding with experienced agents until the probationary year was completed. My academy class entered with 50 students, I don't remember the exact number but just over 30 of us completed the probationary year. That was about average, I think somewhere between 60-70% was the norm.

By the time I was a Field Training Officer in 1996, prior experience requirements were already being reduced and background checks sped up to comply with hiring mandates. By the time I became a Supervisor in 1998, incident rates were rising including allegations of excessive force, rights violations, and internal policy violations. Then following 9/11 and the creation of DHS, we were taken out of DOJ, which at least made an effort to investigate and take enforcement actions, and made part of the DHS/ICE. And the agency just spiraled into a disorganized mess. I resigned in 2007, probably 5 years later than I should have.

ICE Shootings Are Freaking Out the GOP. They're Afraid to Tell Trump.
www.politico.com

... To cover the Republican Party in the age of President Donald Trump requires a grasp of cryptology.

Because of the unflinching personal loyalty he demands, and punishment he'll administer on public dissenters, leading GOP officials speak in rhetorical code.

And in the aftermath of the second killing by federal agents of a protester in Minnesota, there's been a stream of statements, comments and sound bites from party lawmakers that beg for translation.

Before we get to the private and public messages being transmitted, however, a word on what top Republicans actually believe about what has become a deepening crisis for the White House, based on my conversations over the last two days.

They are concerned more protests to the bloodshed may beget additional incidents, have little faith in DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and, from a raw political standpoint, worry the party has squandered the best issues it had when voters were otherwise frustrated with the cost of living: the border and public order.

Immigration, broadly, as one veteran senator granted anonymity to speak candidly told me over the weekend, is for the GOP what health care is for Democrats -- a "home game."

Yet with viral images of Americans being shot in broad daylight replacing migrants stampeding across the country's border, that advantage is quickly dissipating.

So what are Republican elected officials doing to address what could prove calamitous, for the country and their political fortunes? ...

[emphasis mine]

The Congressional Research Service did an analysis of similarly situated legislation in 2010; Constitutionality of Excluding Aliens from the Census for Apportionment and Redistricting Purposes .

Conclusion

The Constitution requires a decennial census to determine the "actual enumeration" of the "whole number of persons" in the United States. The data must be used to apportion the House seats among the states, although there is no constitutional requirement it be used to determine voting districts within the states. The term "whole number of persons" appears broad enough to include all individuals, regardless of citizenship status, and thus would appear to require the entire population be included in the apportionment calculation. As such, a constitutional amendment, such as that found in H.J.Res. 11 in the 111th Congress, would likely be necessary in order to exclude any individuals from the census count for the purpose of apportioning House seats. (emphasis added)

#43 Flag: The coward boaz rears his ugly head again; is so thin-skinned he actually plonked A_Friend

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy