Jeffrey A. Setaro

Political & Cultural Commentary from a Constitutional Conservative.

Union Representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents Unanimously Approves a “vote of no confidence” in ICE Leadership

By

The union representing rank and file Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents has unanimously approved a “Vote of No Confidence” in the agency’s leadership. The statement released on June 25, 2010 accuse ICE Director  John Morton, and Phyllis Coven, assistant director for the agency’s office of detention policy and planning of abandoning its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty.

From the Washington Times:

The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, voted 259-0 for a resolution saying there was “growing dissatisfaction and concern” over the leadership of Assistant Secretary John Morton, who heads ICE, and Phyllis Coven, assistant director for the agency’s office of detention policy and planning.

The resolution said ICE leadership had “abandoned the agency’s core mission of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and providing for public safety,” instead directing its attention “to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty and the creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most U.S. citizens similarly incarcerated.

“It is the desire of our union … to publicly separate ourselves from the actions of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven and publicly state that ICE officers and employees do not support Morton or Coven or their misguided and reckless initiatives, which could ultimately put many in America at risk,” the union said.

In a strongly worded statement, the union and its affiliated local councils said the integrity of the agency “as well as the public safety” would be “better provided for in the absence of Director Morton and Assistant Director Coven.”

Interestingly Mr. Morton told the Washington Post in an interview a few weeks ago that calls for his resignation were ‘just part of the territory,’:

“You develop a thick skin in a job like this,” said Morton, who admits to reading many of the brickbats that come his way but says they don’t consume him. “I’d imagine that for some other senior leaders in government, the day when someone calls for their resignation would be the day they’d remember throughout their career. That’s just part of the territory here.”

That may be true Mr. Morton, but if you’ve lost the confidence of the men and women who work for you I don’t see how you can do your job effectively.

Related

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Maybe you can use the th Amendment of the Constitution to get your point thru to Morton and Coven –

    August 3, 2010
    Arizona Has A Case (Short Of Secession) For Billions In Damages From Uncle Sam
    By JOSEPH R. EVANNS AND EGON MITTELMANN Investor’s Business Daily

    In federal lawsuits, defendants may answer litigation filed against them with a counterclaim against the plaintiff for damages or other relief.

    The Constitution of the United States mandates at Article 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government … that the United States shall protect each of them (the states) against invasion and … against domestic violence.” (Emphasis added)
    “Republican form of government” is defined as a republic that is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives to exercise that power.

    To “guarantee” means to warrant or undertake that something has happened or will happen. The term “invasion” is (regarding a country or territory ) a hostile incursion.
    The term “shall” used in the third person singular denotes an imperative, without discretion or choice. Thus, the phrase “shall guarantee” leaves no wiggle room.

    Remedies for breach of guarantee are damages (expenses incurred in repairing guaranteed product) or rescission (return of product for refund of purchase price — i.e., “money back” guarantee).
    Recently, the federal government — the present regime in particular — has not only violated the guarantee of republican form of government and the pledge to protect Arizona from invasion and domestic violence, but has actively worked to achieve the exact opposite result.

    [Snip]
    Read the rest at Investors.com.

    • Thanks for the link James, I had to trim your comment and add a link to the original IBD Editorial. Generally speaking ‘Fair Use’ allows us to quote a portions of an article along with a link to the source in a post, but not the full article.

Trackbacks