CBP officer

[biggdawgdaddy]

They could make the training modular. Increase the port specific training while decreasing the amount of time at FLETC (or keep it the same instead of increasing it). In the event of a switch, the additional training module for the specific port would ensure fresh and updated knowledge, reducing the rusty liabiltiy.

Based on your own testimony, it is quasi-impossible to switch ports anyway - whats the harm?. Modular training would institutionalize and encourage the practice and provide a liability rational for higher ups to accept the transfer because it would make an old recruit a bit more fresh and less likely to go off the hip and screw up.

The only downside would be Kansas CBP officers who were a bit foggy on marine interdiction...

We do have add on classes that are port specific...it is called advanced training. Basic Academy is ment to give you the basics, just like the core courses in collage, basic combat training ect. I have not found a lot of use for my English Lit class, but I don't dispute that I should have taken it. I have not set up a Shelter half in the last 20 years, but it does not mean that it was not worth learning.

Merlin is right, if we seperated you into land border, sea port, and air port you would never be able to function when we send you TDY to another port. You could never leave the type of port you were trained to function in. Also on those rare occasions that you need some of those things that you think are not useful, you were at least exposed to it in the basic course.

A History prof once told me "You don't have to memorize this stuff, you just need to know it existed and where to look it up".

[TuffStuffCBP]

We do have add on classes that are port specific...it is called advanced training. Basic Academy is ment to give you the basics, just like the core courses in collage, basic combat training ect. I have not found a lot of use for my English Lit class, but I don't dispute that I should have taken it. I have not set up a Shelter half in the last 20 years, but it does not mean that it was not worth learning.

Merlin is right, if we seperated you into land border, sea port, and air port you would never be able to function when we send you TDY to another port. You could never leave the type of port you were trained to function in. Also on those rare occasions that you need some of those things that you think are not useful, you were at least exposed to it in the basic course.

A History prof once told me "You don't have to memorize this stuff, you just need to know it existed and where to look it up".

Fair enough. I'm not an officer, I was just shooting from the hip.

[2g2gn]

anyone here also waiting for WA -Northern Borders???

I'm also waiting for Wa Northern Border and there's two other individual in this forum who's TSU date is earlier than mine.

TSU Date 8/18/09

[kc12]

Let me start by saying this is all "I wish anyway" and I know it will never happen. Merlin--you broke it down too far and took too much out of the basic academy. The add on training will be for port types, not port specific. So if a person is going to a port that has a lot of immigration type issues (i.e. Airports, land border, seaports that still have foreign ships) then you go to in depth training for that. If you are going to a port that has nothing but cargo then you go to a follow on for in depth training for that.

In the basic academy everyone is still given the basics of immigration and cargo, but not as in depth as we currently have it. Things like knowing that the citizenship charts exist is fine. Instead of training everyone to the point of being able to figure out everyones citizenship at the basic academy. Being at a cargo port, almost everything I learned at the academy is useless to me. I know it exists, but since I don't use it I have pretty much forgotten most of it. As it was when I went through, there was technology we were tested on that the first time we used it was at the test. That was because we didn't have the time to do it properly. It was pointless for many of the people going to a land border or passenger airport to learn the old cargo systems. That was stuff that, unless you use it frequently, it is easily forgotten. Heck I do cargo research when I'm bored, but still use cheatsheets for the old system (but that's because I'm spoiled and use the new one a lot).

My point is that the academy hits a lot of immigration very in depth, that a lot of officers never see because of the port they are assigned. At the same time the basic academy only teaches about a week of cargo and trade. Going the other way and teaching a lot of trade and a little immigration makes about as much sense. There is a lot more information out there for cargo that is not taught at the academy that is used on a daily basis. The reason trade can't be covered is not enough time. My point is if they can't increase the academy to include trade, why not make some follow on classes and not hit immigration as hard in basic? The impression I got out of the academy was the job was all about immigration and a little bit of trade. I'm not talking about cutting the academy in half to allow for the follow on classes. Maybe two or three weeks would be sufficient.

[sr20]

I'm also waiting for Wa Northern Border and there's two other individual in this forum who's TSU date is earlier than mine.

TSU Date 8/18/09

I hope we're up next when Oct 1st comes....

[Khue]

Thank you for answering my question officers.

[sr20]

Question for the WA guys...

Can someone give me like a ballpark range for renting a 1 bedroom apt? or even just 1 room...I just want to hear some of your opinions and advices, since its really a big move for me going from NYC life to WA...

And I'm wondering if WA needs alot of CBP Officers...

Any tips would be greatly appreciated...

[merlin436]

Let me start by saying this is all "I wish anyway" and I know it will never happen. Merlin--you broke it down too far and took too much out of the basic academy. The add on training will be for port types, not port specific. So if a person is going to a port that has a lot of immigration type issues (i.e. Airports, land border, seaports that still have foreign ships) then you go to in depth training for that. If you are going to a port that has nothing but cargo then you go to a follow on for in depth training for that.

In the basic academy everyone is still given the basics of immigration and cargo, but not as in depth as we currently have it. Things like knowing that the citizenship charts exist is fine. Instead of training everyone to the point of being able to figure out everyones citizenship at the basic academy. Being at a cargo port, almost everything I learned at the academy is useless to me. I know it exists, but since I don't use it I have pretty much forgotten most of it. As it was when I went through, there was technology we were tested on that the first time we used it was at the test. That was because we didn't have the time to do it properly. It was pointless for many of the people going to a land border or passenger airport to learn the old cargo systems. That was stuff that, unless you use it frequently, it is easily forgotten. Heck I do cargo research when I'm bored, but still use cheatsheets for the old system (but that's because I'm spoiled and use the new one a lot).

My point is that the academy hits a lot of immigration very in depth, that a lot of officers never see because of the port they are assigned. At the same time the basic academy only teaches about a week of cargo and trade. Going the other way and teaching a lot of trade and a little immigration makes about as much sense. There is a lot more information out there for cargo that is not taught at the academy that is used on a daily basis. The reason trade can't be covered is not enough time. My point is if they can't increase the academy to include trade, why not make some follow on classes and not hit immigration as hard in basic? The impression I got out of the academy was the job was all about immigration and a little bit of trade. I'm not talking about cutting the academy in half to allow for the follow on classes. Maybe two or three weeks would be sufficient.

How would transfers, promotions, specialty duties and like issues be affected by all that?

It seems to me that there would be a creation of a "generalist" CBPO; A guy who attended the basic academy...and nothing else. Then, an immigration CBPO, a customs CBPO, and perhaps lastly, a cross-trained immigration/customs CBPO.

I don't see how a "generalist" moves or promotes easily. In short, he's likely stuck with limited options forever. On the flip side, the cross-trained guys look to me to have a fairly clear path to promotion, transfers, and specialty teams. In the middle, the immigration/customs people would be fighting it out for their share of the pie.

It sure seems to me to likely create far more problems than it solves.

[Khue]

Question for the WA guys...

Can someone give me like a ballpark range for renting a 1 bedroom apt? or even just 1 room...I just want to hear some of your opinions and advices, since its really a big move for me going from NYC life to WA...

And I'm wondering if WA needs alot of CBP Officers...

Any tips would be greatly appreciated...

It's all depends where you go really. However, expect to be much cheaper than NYC. If you live in a metropolis, like Seattle, median price range for one bedroom is around $700 to $900, don't expect high quality apartment. However, if you were to station north of the border, or even in the middle of no where, I will say around $500 to $700. The best thing to do is select a location and do a renting search to get more closer estimate. It's nice in Washington. Life will be a lot slower for you in Washington because it is very slow pace if you live north...

[kc12]

How would transfers, promotions, specialty duties and like issues be affected by all that?

It seems to me that there would be a creation of a "generalist" CBPO; A guy who attended the basic academy...and nothing else. Then, an immigration CBPO, a customs CBPO, and perhaps lastly, a cross-trained immigration/customs CBPO.

I don't see how a "generalist" moves or promotes easily. In short, he's likely stuck with limited options forever. On the flip side, the cross-trained guys look to me to have a fairly clear path to promotion, transfers, and specialty teams. In the middle, the immigration/customs people would be fighting it out for their share of the pie.

It sure seems to me to likely create far more problems than it solves.

The same way they are now. Currently, a person working at a port doing nothing but cargo, will forget just about all of the immigration training provided at FLETC within a couple years. The high points will probably be maintained for longer, but most of the training will be lost. Conversely the person working at a port dealing mainly with immigration will probably forget everything they learned about trade and cargo within a few months. So how does a person working at immigration ports move to a cargo port and vis-versa? It seems to be a tough move when you have to detail why you are so good for the new position, when the only experience you have is that you attended the basic academy 5-10-15 years ago. Even though I went the the academy with a strong emphasis on immigration pretty much all I've done is cargo. I could go to an immigration port and work the line only after relearning just about everything I was taught in the academy.

[sr20]

It's all depends where you go really. However, expect to be much cheaper than NYC. If you live in a metropolis, like Seattle, median price range for one bedroom is around $700 to $900, don't expect high quality apartment. However, if you were to station north of the border, or even in the middle of no where, I will say around $500 to $700. The best thing to do is select a location and do a renting search to get more closer estimate. It's nice in Washington. Life will be a lot slower for you in Washington because it is very slow pace if you live north...

Thanks Khue,

The price range looks about the same..also depending on which areas as well in NYC...

Btw, since I got the TO for WA Northern Borders, do you think they most likely going to offer like Blaine/Bellingham...would Seattle would be an option??
I have to look at the TO again to see...

[Khue]

Thanks Khue,

The price range looks about the same..also depending on which areas as well in NYC...

Btw, since I got the TO for WA Northern Borders, do you think they most likely going to offer like Blaine/Bellingham...would Seattle would be an option??
I have to look at the TO again to see...

No. Seattle is not an option, just land port of entry along the border and few small cities like Bellingham, Anacortes, and Friday Harbor are also an option.

[TuffStuffCBP]

The same way they are now. Currently, a person working at a port doing nothing but cargo, will forget just about all of the immigration training provided at FLETC within a couple years. The high points will probably be maintained for longer, but most of the training will be lost. Conversely the person working at a port dealing mainly with immigration will probably forget everything they learned about trade and cargo within a few months. So how does a person working at immigration ports move to a cargo port and vis-versa? It seems to be a tough move when you have to detail why you are so good for the new position, when the only experience you have is that you attended the basic academy 5-10-15 years ago. Even though I went the the academy with a strong emphasis on immigration pretty much all I've done is cargo. I could go to an immigration port and work the line only after relearning just about everything I was taught in the academy.

Right. A person working at a Immigration/Customs based port is going to have an easier time transferring to an immigration Customs port anyway. As a taxpayer, I'm sure that the governemnt paying money to educate officers doesn't seem like a great idea if that officer has no intention or realistic expectation to use the knowledge learned. Training costs money - I would hope that money was being spent where the training was needed and merely available in the event that it becomed more necessary (in the case of a transfer or if traffic and use changed in a port).

I know that it might not seem "fair" to limited port workers, but it is sensible logistically and financially. Refresher courses should probably be mandatory anyway when switching primary duties either at your own port or over to another.

I do understand Merlin's concerns, but the fact is that CBP already DOES create generalist CBPO officers. I'd assume that most people who went through basic and never used the skills have forgotten them and are at a disadvantage when applying for a change as is. At least institutionalizing the modular training would put everyone on a similar level and would only be used when the skills were necessary. The overall effect would be to save money in the long run while having more port specific officers. Additionally the change would institutionalize transfers as the result of updated training. Food for thought.

[merlin436]

The same way they are now. Currently, a person working at a port doing nothing but cargo, will forget just about all of the immigration training provided at FLETC within a couple years. The high points will probably be maintained for longer, but most of the training will be lost. Conversely the person working at a port dealing mainly with immigration will probably forget everything they learned about trade and cargo within a few months. So how does a person working at immigration ports move to a cargo port and vis-versa? It seems to be a tough move when you have to detail why you are so good for the new position, when the only experience you have is that you attended the basic academy 5-10-15 years ago. Even though I went the the academy with a strong emphasis on immigration pretty much all I've done is cargo. I could go to an immigration port and work the line only after relearning just about everything I was taught in the academy.

I more or less agree.

In your case at least you had the immigration training at the academy...so if you decided to up and move yourself to an immigration port either on TDY or a a move, it should come back to you.

If you never had it, if cargo was all you were trained in, then what? I doubt any port is going to jump to send people back to FLETC for further training. I doubt that most ports have the people or the infrastructure to train in-house. Most likely, people would just never get training outside of what they were originally trained for, and movement and promotion would become even more difficult than it currently is.

[TuffStuffCBP]

I more or less agree.

In your case at least you had the immigration training at the academy...so if you decided to up and move yourself to an immigration port either on TDY or a a move, it should come back to you.

If you never had it, if cargo was all you were trained in, then what? I doubt any port is going to jump to send people back to FLETC for further training. I doubt that most ports have the people or the infrastructure to train in-house. Most likely, people would just never get training outside of what they were originally trained for, and movement and promotion would become even more difficult than it currently is.

Maybe if there was a systemic training allowance based on performance for all officers? It would allow people to accumulate points based on their job performance to be used for more training and better job prospects. The harder you worked the more likely you could cash in your training chips, recieve the earned training and be transfered in turn. That puts the possibility in everyones hands equally more or less; then guys who just want to skate through their jobs arn't on the same level as the guys willing to work for their goals.

This is what happens when we sit here waiting for the job. Remember that I have no idea what I am talking about.