Bill to create a Texas Homeland Security Division passes state Senate
The Texas Senate on Thursday approved a proposal that would create a homeland security division within the state's Department of Public Safety to focus on immigration enforcement, organized crime and protecting the state's infrastructure from security risks.
If passed into law, Senate Bill 36 would make Texas' immigration enforcement efforts a permanent part of the state's criminal justice system. SB 36, which passed in the Senate on a 26-4 vote, will now go before the state House of Representatives.
For the past four years, Texas legislators have plowed more than $11 billion into Operation Lone Star, Gov. Greg Abbott's ongoing border crackdown that deployed state police and Texas National Guard along the state's nearly 1,300 miles of border with Mexico.
OLS, launched shortly after Joe Biden's presidency began, also paid to build sections of border wall, deploy miles of razor wire along the Rio Grande and open facilities to house National Guard troops and process apprehended migrants.
After peaking at the end of 2023, migrant apprehensions at the border began to drop last year after Biden created programs that allowed people to enter the U.S. legally and have reached historically small numbers since President Trump took office and shut down asylum claims by migrants.
But even more enforcement is needed, said state Sen. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, the bill's sponsor. He added that the state needs its own homeland security office because it would 'safeguard our border, our residents and our economic engines.
'It strikes the right balance between providing for our security and respecting the roles of our local and federal partners,' Parker said.
Some Democrats questioned why the state needs its own Homeland Security Division if the federal Department of Homeland Security is already responsible for protecting the country's infrastructure and curtailing illegal immigration.
'Are everyday Texans the target of these folks, or who is the target of this new Homeland Security Division?' asked Sen. José Menendez, D-San Antonio.
Parker said the intent is not to create more policing of Texas residents but to centralize the Department of Public Safety's functions into one division that could help streamline intelligence.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick designated SB 36 among his top priorities for the legislative session.
'By creating a Homeland Security Division within DPS, we can centralize vital homeland security operations within DPS, resulting in a better prepared and protected Texas,' Patrick said in a statement after the bill was passed.
According to a fiscal report on the bill, SB 36 would allow the state to hire 23 full time employees for the new division, which could cost $7 million by August 2027.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
What to know about ICE protests in L.A. as Trump orders in National Guard
Federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles sparked two days of protests around the city, prompting a standoff between the White House and state officials over whether authorities had the situation under control. On Saturday, President Donald Trump ordered the California National Guard to intervene — a move condemned as escalatory and unnecessary by Democrats in the state.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats are spending $20 million to learn how to talk to men. Here's what they should do instead
It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. Democrats are spending $20 million on a program called SAM, or 'Speaking with American Men,' to help them learn how to communicate with the demographic that is shifting the political landscape in the Trump era. 'Above all,' it urges, 'we must shift from a moralizing tone.' But that's what Democrats do best! The Dems could have saved that money and gotten better advice on winning back voters by spending $30 on UC law school professor Joan C. Williams' new book, 'Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back.' Bay Area liberals — and those like them around the country — are part of the problem. She calls them 'the cultural elites.' College-educated voters who are in the upper 20% of income-earners in this country. You know the type. Perhaps you are the type. The virtue-signaling, sign-posting, Facebook-oversharing, holier-than-thou tsk-tskers among us. 'That's us, most of us in this room,' Williams said during a recent book reading in Berkeley. 'Too often, we don't rail against economic elites, but we also fuel that narrative that we look down on people in the middle over time. They're 'deplorables' (Hillary Clinton's description of some Donald Trump supporters) 'clinging to guns and religion' (Barack Obama's line). They're 'stupid Trump voters who don't understand their own self-interest' (typical liberal Facebook post, an allusion to Thomas Frank's 'What's the Matter With Kansas?'). These are all class insults that just fuel the far right.' All those pulldowns do, Williams said, is 'reinforce the right's populist scripts that elites are looking down on you.' And that script is playing nonstop on your favorite conservative media outlet. Williams cites a study showing that former Fox News host Tucker Carlson mentioned the term 'ruling class' in 70% of his episodes from 2016 to 2021. Yes, Carlson is an annoying, bow tie-wearing dweeb, but he also hosted a top-rated cable news show. And his relentless messaging was echoed across the conservative world, including by Donald Trump. It was effective. Two-thirds of non-college-educated voters — once the base of the Democratic party — have consistently backed Trump. Meanwhile, only 20% of ads run by Democratic House candidates in competitive districts in 2022 'critiqued economic elites in any way whatsoever,' Williams writes. Williams notes there are two kinds of populism: 'The left's version of populism: 'They're robbing you blind.' Where the villains are the economic elites, the 1% as we like to call them. And then there's the right's version, which is 'They (the cultural elites) look down on you.'' Republicans do the bidding of the 1% (like the Trump tax bill that disproportionately rewards wealthy taxpayers) by co-opting the working class voters onto their side through culture wars against the cultural elite. 'We keep walking into the same old traps over and over,' Williams said. For 40 years. Nevertheless, Williams doesn't scold liberals. Instead, she suggests ways to win back working-class voters. Here's the most important: 'Make them feel seen.' Feelings rule among progressives, she said. She cites the virtue-signaling yard signs that are everywhere in the Bay Area: 'In this house, we believe: Black lives matter / Women's rights are human rights / No Human is illegal / Science is real / Love is love / Kindness is everything. 'But that empathy and connection is strictly optional when it comes to working-class people,' Williams said, guessing what a liberal might say about them: 'They're just dumb people who are trashing democracy, who are duped by the right.' Said Williams: 'We are very upset about how people are disadvantaged by race and gender — and completely blind, or largely blind, to people who are disadvantaged by class,' she said. The backlash: That unfeeling toward working-class voters, Williams said, puts a target on the backs of immigrants and trans kids and people of color, and 'sculpts anger against them,' she said as some may wonder, Why are we less deserving than them? Williams said if you're asking why working-class voters 'are so angry, they're angry because we have a rigged economy.' Over the past 35 years, the wages of college graduates have increased 83% while those of working-class Americans have stagnated. And if the left doesn't channel that anger, Williams said, 'We know who will.' Here's one of her tips for winning them back: Candidates should stop focusing on 'defending democracy.' Defending democracy is low on the scale of needs for someone working three jobs who can't afford decent child care. 'Defending democracy is not best done by talking incessantly about defending democracy,' Williams said. 'And the people who we've lost — non-college voters — they're not too interested in defending democracy, because they think democracy has failed them. We need to focus on economics, not defense of democracy.' Take how liberals often talk about climate change. Calling conservatives 'climate deniers' may be accurate, but it comes off sounding like 'We're smarter than you.' she said. Instead, progressives can connect with farmers, who can become messengers who can say, 'I can no longer grow what my grandfather grew on this land,' Williams writes. In coastal and fire-prone areas, she writes that progressives 'can point out that insurance companies are already changing underwriting habits due to fires and floods exacerbated by climate change.' It's a way to unite different classes in a populist way against Big Insurance. When it comes to religion, progressives often look down at churchgoing non-college grads. That's a mistake, as religion is central to their lives, Williams writes, providing 'for many non-elites the kind of intellectual engagement, stability, hopefulness, future orientation, impulse control, aspirations to purity and social safety net that elites typically get from their careers, their therapist, their politics, and their bank accounts.' She tilted the chapter that contains that passage: 'Therapy's expensive, but praying is free.' 'Religion is very functional in the lives of non-elites,' Williams said. 'Religion is so powerful in offering sort of mental ballast and stability that being a believer actually erases the effects of class disadvantage.' In 2020, 84% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump, a thrice-married man who bragged about sexually assaulting women on the 'Access Hollywood' tape. Williams notes that 40% of college grads say they are neither spiritual nor religious. Williams is not advocating that progressives move toward the center and abandon advocating for marginalized groups that can be politically polarizing, like the trans community. 'Politically, it doesn't make sense,' Williams said at her Berkeley reading last month. 'Raise your hands if you will support a Democratic candidate that gives up on all of the issues that you cherish most.' Instead, she suggested channeling Sen. John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat whom she paraphrased as saying, 'If you get your jollies bullying trans kids, then you really need another job.' She said Fetterman is using a 'blue-collar style of conversation. It's not fancy, it's not policy based. It's poking fun at somebody. He's doing all the things that Trump does. Trump channels a certain style of American working-class masculinity to victimize trans kids. Some politicians, not all of them, can channel the same style of masculinity to say, you know, if you're bullying kids, you know, you got to find another job.' The challenge is finding Democrats who can pull that off.
