A Second Vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” for Chief of the Border Patrol

David V. Aguilar

February 28, 2009

On February 25, 2009, 100 delegates, representing approximately 11,000 members of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), cast a second unanimous vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar.

Prior to the departure to the NBPC National Conference in La Quinta, California, the leadership of Del Rio Sector Local 2366 requested the input from the members in attendance at the past union meeting.  The question posed was, “If there is the opportunity to cast another vote of no confidence against the Chief, would you support it?” All members present at the monthly meeting agreed that they would be in favor of another such action.

The reason for the vote of no confidence is due to Chief Aguilar’s obvious disdain for the rank and file members of the Border Patrol. Moreover, the Chief has historically been reluctant to deal with the Union on a National level and has violated most of the few agreements made between the two.  Further, Chief Aguilar has tied the hands of management and ordered Border Patrol leadership not to bargain with the representatives of their respective locals.

This vote comes shortly after the receipt of a four-page letter outlining the blatant cronyism and mismanagement that has been implemented in the highest levels of the Border Patrol. The initial vote of no confidence was unprecedented, but the second unanimous vote eliminates any doubt; Chief Aguilar is not fit to govern the Border Patrol.  His ongoing pattern of mismanagement has been met with a second vote of no confidence, indicating that the divide between Chief of the Border Patrol David Aguilar and field Agents has grown to the point where it has become irreconcilable.

Chief of the Border Patrol David Aguilar’s Letter

February 05, 2009

Fellow Union Members, a four page letter was recently sent anonymously to Chief of the Border Patrol David Aguilar. (Click here to view the letter) Outlined in the letter are some very interesting accusations. This missive has been received by several Locals within the National Border Patrol Council and, after having read this letter, it appears to have been written by a manager or group of managers. We will substitute the word "leader" for these individuals, because to have the moral courage to stand up for what one believes is, unfortunately, a seldom found trait in this organization. We believe the reason for this drought of courage is the fear of retribution from those in the positions criticized.

We think that all who have the opportunity to read this will truly enjoy the letter. It has been claimed by some that the Union may have written it.  However, we believe that much of the information divulged was privy only to a handful of members of upper management.  Further, it is our belief, that if the article was indeed penned by a Union official it would have been signed by the author, as has been the case with past letters.
 

Management

September 13^th, 2008

            It is an unfortunate impression maintained by some members of the Service that the Union is an anti-management organization.  Although it may appear at times that the endeavors of the Union are anti-management, combating management is not the purpose of the Union but rather a manifestation of our true purpose.  That true purpose is to insure the continual fair treatment of the Agent.

            We would like to address this article to the members of management who are exemplary in carrying out the Border Patrol mission.  There are many characteristics that make a good leader and a number of supervisors possess it all.

            Being able to communicate with one’s subordinates seems like common sense when considering a good leader; however, there are those who excel in this category.  Supervisors who have these communication skills express ideas in a clear, positive, convincing way.  They have tact and do not engage in the practice of spreading rumors.  These supervisors are honest in their communication with both the Agents and other members of management.  Agents feel like they can confide in such leaders in matters professional and personal.

            It is sometimes the case that an apprehension is made in the last hours of AUO and the Supervisor is expected to stay at the station until his agents are completed with the processing.  The management officials who handle this sort of development in a positive manner are a real asset, not just to the Border Patrol mission but the Agents as well.  No one wants to stay away from their friends and family longer than they have to, but we are here to do a job.  To that end, we greatly appreciate management who accepts and appreciates the work the Agents are doing.

            Another one of the traits that seems to be abundant in some members of management is a true concern for the Agents.  At a minimum, a supervisor should be aware of what their Agents are doing at work.  But there are supervisors that are honestly interested in the well being of their subordinates.  These supervisors make an active effort to assure that the Agents are safe.  Good supervisors are willing to be mentors and guide agents.  Whether it is work related or a personal issue, the supervisor always gives the impression that he/she is there for the Agents.  They may risk the chance of alienating themselves amongst their peers and superiors but they do not sell out on their morals.

            The final characteristic is, unfortunately, the one that the Union encounters the least.  That characteristic is belief in justice.  Working for an agency that used to be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, it would make sense that everyone believed in this principle.  Everyone should be treated the same under similar circumstances, whether they are Agents, members of management or close friends of the Chief.  This is justice.  Justice should not be confused with prosecution.  It is not about making agents cut memos for vehicle damage and yet ignore the damage entirely when another supervisor does the same.  Application of this principle, perhaps more than any other, is very much noticed by the Agents.  Whether something is fair or not is the most common issue we stewards have brought to our attention.  It goes past equal treatment in discipline.  Fair selection to details, assignment of days off and other such behaviors are all ways that a good supervisor shows off his belief in justice.

To those members of management who bear these characteristics, we thank you.  After all, we are an agency, and clearly you are aware that it takes Agents to make up an Agency.

Scheduling Conflict

            The chief responsibility of a Union steward is to represent the interests of Union members.  Whether representing the Local as a whole or an individual member in a disciplinary action, the premise is the same.  The Union acts as the intermediaries between the agents and management, and attempts to provide fair treatment to the agents.

            As important as this representation is, and despite it being a right guaranteed to all agents via the Collective Bargaining Agreement and labor law, specifically the Federal Labor Relations Authority, it is frequently interfered with by management.  Proper representation is sometimes denied intentionally and sometimes through ignorance.  The denial that will be addressed by this article is that of a deliberate nature.

            Recently, the Union has faced problems with the Service regarding scheduled oral reply dates.  For the lay person, who may be unfamiliar with the disciplinary process, part of the disciplinary action includes the right to present a written, an oral, or a written and oral reply, to a person in management other than the management personal who made the original proposal to discipline.  Although the previous description of due process may sound confusing, it is dealt with frequently by agents and their stewards when addressing all discipline, ranging from a one-day suspension to termination.

            When information is requested by an agent or his or her representative, an opportunity to reply orally to the charges is frequently included.  The date for the oral reply is scheduled after the written reply has been received or the allotted time to issue a written reply has expired.  The agent and his Union steward have no idea when the oral reply will be scheduled.  It is therefore nearly impossible to schedule for the oral reply until after the Service has proposed a date for the reply.

Now, it would be expected that the Service would understand that the steward who began the process with the agent would be the one who is present at the oral reply.  The steward, who is assisting the charged agent, inarguably knows more about the case and its defense than anyone else.  He/she essentially becomes an expert on that particular case. The Service seems to agree with this.  Citing a recent proposal for discipline issued by the Service, “you are entitled to be represented in this matter by an attorney or other representative of your choice.” ( Emphasis added.)  This is actually pretty generic language and exists in all disciplinary proposals in one form or another 

            As mentioned before, the stewards are unaware of when the oral reply is going to take place.  In two recent cases, stewards who were representing agents were unable to make the dates initially proposed by the Service.  In both cases, the impediment was not due to personal plans but rather previous commitments within the Service.  In short, work was preventing the stewards from attending the oral replies on the initially proposed days.  Did the Service appreciate this reality?  No, on the contrary, in one case the Service stated that another steward could represent the agent (despite it being a termination case), in the other case the Service offered the following opinion,

“The workforce has the right to be represented by the union. They do not have the right to be represented by a specific union member. Sector has more than done its share to facilitate meetings but we are at the point where we are getting unreasonable request for rescheduling because a specific union steward is not available. A specific incident is having the Deputy reschedule a meeting because ______was not available.

We need a common sense approach to these issues.” (sanitized correspondence between a Service representative, and Local 2366 Executive Officer.)

The rescheduling that the Service is referring to was due to the Union steward having previously scheduled, Service related plans for both of the proposed dates.  The “unreasonable request” was merely, “I am not able to attend that day, due to _____ in fact I am tied up with other commitments for the rest of July.  August would be better.  Can we do it on another date?”( Note, this is not an exact quotation but, essentially, the message that was exchanged while leaving out details which may reveal the steward’s identity.) What is unreasonable about this?  This is all in-spite of the Service frequently rescheduling, or just plain ignoring, meetings made by the Union to communicate with the agency.  Somehow, the Service sees this rescheduling, which is not a common occurrence on the part of the Union, as a problem which needs a common sense approach.

Ok, here is a solution: assign a full-time Union representative for the Del Rio Sector.  This would certainly be a great help to the agents and the Service, especially if they intend on continuing with the rash of termination proposals.  It would assure that the steward had no conflicting work plans, which the Service apparently has such great qualms with 

Or, (now this may sound “unreasonable”) deal with the fact that the agents who act as stewards may have other obligations.  Because they do not know when the oral reply will be, the best they can do is make an effort to be present.  Pending that, the appointment will have to be rescheduled.  No steward is telling the Service to reschedule solely for the sake of doing so.  To not allow the Agents their representative of choice (the steward who has been working on their case from the day of the proposal) the Service is sabotaging the agent’s opportunity to present the best defense.  And the very least an agent should be promised is the best defense.

Disparity in Treatment

 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1We stewards who are involved in the workings of NBPC Local 2366 often throw around the phrase, “fair and equitable,” when discussing our expectations of discipline.  It could be argued that insuring fair treatment for Border Patrol Agents is the essence of the Union.  Everyone should be treated in a similar fashion, regardless of their position in the agency.  It is a policy that management endorses, at least publicly.

In reality, we often find blatant instances of disparity where members of management are treated differently than agents in similar situations.  Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “disparate” as that which is “markedly distinct in quality or character.”(1). The Union believes that this is a very accurate definition of the actions of management in a number of cases.

In most of these cases, a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent was given little, or no, discipline while regular agents faced consequences far more severe, often several days off, for similar circumstances.  Perhaps the disparity can be better illustrated by recounting some recent previous incidents.

Late last year, it came to the attention of the Union that a supervisor had been arrested for “family violence/assault.” (2). Upon investigation, it was discovered that this was indeed the case.  Apparently, charges had been dropped by the supervisor’s wife and the involved supervisor was back at work the following day.  He never had his badge or gun taken away and, as far as we are aware, faced no outside investigation or discipline.

If the Service wants to treat these cases in such a fashion, that is their prerogative, so long as they treat all the cases in a similar manner. This, however, is not the case.

Several months later, a line-agent faced similar charges: “family violence/assault.”  The agent’s wife stated that the whole incident was due to her overreacting and taking an argument too far.  Further, like the supervisor’s wife, she stated that she was not injured in any way and dropped all charges.  In fact, while reading the reports, it was hard to distinguish which case was which, so similar were the details (3).  After reporting the incident of arrest to a supervisor, the agent was asked to complete a memorandum detailing the incident and his supervisor created a SIR and submitted a report of the incident to the Joint Intake Center (JIC).  Within a day or so, the agent was called into the APAIC’s office and was relieved of his badge and gun (4).   He was then put on administrative duties.  The agent was issued a Notice to Appear for an investigative interview by the Office of Internal Affairs.  Discipline has not yet been proposed in regards to this case.  The disparity is rather apparent in the first examples as the charges are EXACTLY THE SAME, yet the course of action taken was markedly different.

The next incident exhibits another clear example of the double standard employed by the Service based solely, on what appears to be, one’s rank in the Border Patrol.  As typical, the line-agent is on the losing end.

A known Mexican Mafia member was pulled over in Uvalde, Texas by an Uvalde Police Officer (5).  At the scene, the officer discovered that the Mexican Mafia member was in the company of a Supervisory Border Patrol Agent. In the vehicle, with the two subjects, was chicken fighting paraphernalia, a “sport” that is illegal in the state of Texas (6).  In the past, the standard discipline for Agents caught fraternizing with questionable characters has been removal of an Agent’s badge and gun, an investigation of the case and finally several days off without pay (7).  The supervisor maintained his credentials, badge, and weapon, and was back to work the next day (8).

The Service has stated officially that they will not tolerate this type of relationship.  Whether the agent is involved in an illicit activity or not, the mere appearance is damaging to the agent and the Service. Yet, when a Supervisor is involved it is a whole new set of rules (9). It is hard to perceive how the incidents involving the agents were any more egregious than that involving the Supervisor.  Maybe the Supervisor’s travel companion was the “good” kind of Mexican Mafia member.

These two comparisons of disparate treatment clearly reflect the double standard which as become rampant in the Border Patrol.  There are many more examples out there that Local 2366 is in the process of substantiating and this article may be updated in the very near future.  In addition, it is likely that there are a great number of disparate treatments of which the Union is unaware.  Please, help us help you.  Any legitimate cases of unfair treatment will be looked into by the Union. After all, there is no reason why the members of management should be treated in a more lax fashion.  With a promotion in rank should come a greater expectation of responsibility.  Unfortunately, this sentiment does not appear to be reflected in the actions of management.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparate, definition number two.

(2) Local 2366 is in possession of a copy of the police report detailing this arrest.

(3) Local 2366 is in possession of a copy of the police report detailing this arrest.

(4) Through the Local 2366‘s intervention, the involved line agent’s badge and gun were returned to the agent after the agent had served a brief amount of time of administrative duties.  To get the agent back on the line, the Union stressed the disparity in treatment between the agent and that of the aforementioned supervisor.

(5) Local 2366 is in possession of a statement written by a Border Patrol Agent who was called to the scene by the Uvalde Police Department, including information given to the agent by the officer.

(6) The act of cock-fighting is a felony offense in Texas with a penalty ranging from 180 days to 2 years in prison, in addition to fines, not exceeding $10,000.00. http://www.hsus.org/acf/fighting/cockfight/state_cockfighting_laws_ranked.html#Texas

(7) The exact disciplines proposed by the Service to two line agents who faced similar charges were 14 and 10 days off without pay.  The charge of 10 days was reduced to 5 days off without pay after the intervention by the by Local 2366.

(8) Despite the Service’s lack of action regarding this case, a memorandum was disseminated to the line-agents to remind them to be cautious with who they affiliate themselves.

(9) The possibility that the supervisor involved in this incident is, in some way, being investigated was raised as a defense by the Service when confronted by the Union concerning their lack of action.  They did not say why they allowed the Supervisor to continue carrying his Service weapon and credentials (line agents typically have their credentials and weapons taken, and are placed on administrative duties) while this “investigation” was proceeding.

January, 28^th 2008

To: All Union Members

SUBJECT: Clarification regarding the situation of Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime  Download this file in MS Word

            Del Rio Sector management, as well as Laredo Sector and El Paso Sector, has decided to go to a four shift rotation. This limited change is in contrast to the first impressions given, that the decision to go to a four shift rotation encompassed the entire United States. There are many who have made an effort to blame the Union for this alteration, but there are certain facts that all should be made aware of prior to placing blame.

1.   AUO (Administratively Uncontrolled Overtime) is uncontrollable, in that it is not anticipated, because it in unanticipated it cannot be scheduled. When someone is made to work checkpoint for eight hours and told to wait for relief from their position in excess of their eight hours, that additional time is scheduled and controllable, therefore time in excess of the eight hours would be considered RSOT (Regularly Scheduled Overtime.)

2.   Management has historically regulated and mandated Agents to remain in static positions until after relief has arrived.  Usually the relief would arrive after the scheduled eight hours of work. Because the Agent is not allowed the opportunity to stop working, anytime in addition to his/her scheduled eight hours would be considered RSOT.

3.   The Union has the right to request that Agents be compensated in accordance with the laws regarding AUO and RSOT. Appropriate payment is not a privilege, it is the law.  If that does not occur, then the Union has an obligation to its members to investigate any possible means to ensure that Agents are appropriately compensated.

4.   Approximately 7 years ago, Local 2544 in Tucson, Arizona, filed a grievance over this issue with the Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent, David Aguilar. In the case of the Tucson violation of pay, Agents were spending in excess of three hours working after their regular eight hours.  It was approximately 80 miles from the Tucson Station to their checkpoint, and they were expected, and ordered to work this time regardless of their opinions.   Mr. Aguilar refused the grievance, citing it lacked merit, and misappropriate payment continued.  On January 14^th, 2008, Mr. Aguilar, now Chief of the Border Patrol, provided a memo to his subordinates informing them that they will be held accountable for any expenses incurred by the Government for the misapplication of the AUO laws verses RSOT. The ironic thing about this is that CPA Aguilar, by providing this memorandum, is in essence admitting that he was not following the laws regarding AUO and RSOT at the time that he was the Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector. To further explain the current state of the grievance, no remedy has yet been given with regard to the Tucson Sector checkpoint to date.  The present decision from the Del Rio Sector Chief, Randy Hill, appears to be knee-jerk and reactionary.  There was no order from Mr. Aguilar, and certainly not from the Border Patrol Union, mandating the implementation of four shifts.  Contrarily, the Local Union, 2366, was pleased with the previous arrangement of three shifts.

5.   The following is a simple illustration.  The agents were the victims of abuse by managed mis-payment in the past.  Now management has overtly and covertly attempted to blame the Agents and the Union for requesting justice.  The Agents are the victims and the managers the perpetrators. If someone is victimized by a perpetrator, who is at fault?  The victim, because they happened to be forced into that situation by the perpetrator? It should be the perpetrator, but unfortunately, some people have gotten this backwards and have sought to tag the Union with the blame. The Union is trying to make right, what should have been right in the first place, yet some managers (not all) have taken the position that laws, regulations, and principles are directed by themselves.

6.   A PAIC in Del Rio Sector sent an E-mail to his subordinate managers stating the following:

“The four shifts are a result of the latest law suit filed and won by the Union out in Arizona.”

“As supervisors, you have the authority to direct agents to work traffic after the end of their shift.”

“We will not be making work or allowing agents to just hang around so that they can maintain their two hours a day but if there is traffic out there we will direct agents to work it.”

“Another thing to keep in mind is that if you are short handed and need agents to work traffic you will be able to call in agents back once they have gone home or from their days off for as long as you need them. These call outs fall under the AUO guidelines and will be paid as AUO. Make sure that all assignments and call outs are fair and equitable to all agents.”

The Unions responses to each of these points are as follows:

a.   The case is not complete and the four shifts are only occurring in three Sectors in the continental United States. This is nothing more than one of several possible solutions, decided on by the Del Rio Sector Chief, to prevent the misapplication of AUO laws. 

b.   If a Supervisor orders or directs an individual to work in addition to their regularly scheduled shift, it is not administratively uncontrollable.  The laws regarding AUO state clearly that it is the decision of the Agent to continue to work because they know what needs to be done. You should notify the Union immediately if this occurs.

c.   If there is traffic that is ongoing then the Agents normally make the call to continue to work it, and most managers know that it isn’t necessary to tell them to continue. If managers start telling people to go home, then they also will have no purpose to remain in the station and can go home after their eight hours and lose their AUO also. No troops in the field, then that manager has ended his/her necessity.

d.   If you are called in on your days off or after you have left the station for the day that would be considered administratively controlled RSOT (The Supervisor is directing it). Should this become a problem, let the Union know what is going on.

            In short, this simple explanation of events should clarify what is going on right now. If there are any more questions; ask a Union Representative. The Sector has stated that it has given the Union a 3A notice, informing us of the change that is to take place on February 17, 2008. Once the Local is in receipt of that notice, we will determine a course of action to pursue.

In solidarity,
Scott R. Davis
President, Local 2366 NBPC/AFGE Affiliated with AFL-CIO

AGENTS OF THE BORDER PATROL MOURN THE LOSS OF ONE OF OUR OWN

It is with sadness that we bring to the forefront of our thoughts, the loss of Senior Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, of the Yuma Sector. He was killed in the line of duty, while protecting our nation’s borders. The thoughts and prayers of Local 2366 go out to his family and co-workers in this difficult time.

DETAIL MANAGEMENT

Local 2366 has, in good faith, attempted to work with the management of Del Rio Sector in the implementation of a detail management system. This system would replace the questionable selection of personnel for details. The current system has demonstrated nepotism, favoritism, the “good ole boy” system, and, of course, recipients of “sweetheart deals” that have allowed specific personnel to move from detail to detail consecutively or remain on detail for multiple year increments, instead of returning to the field. A detail management team concept has been provided to each of the Patrol Agents in Charge throughout the Sector.  Some of them have taken the effort seriously to improve the dispersion of details to qualified and deserving individuals based on certain criteria, yet, some have taken the steps to ensure that managers still hold the lion’s share of the decision as to who gets the detail and who doesn’t, in layman’s terms, returning to the pervious detail management system, where details are decided by management. Still there remains some personnel receiving special treatment and remaining on detail.  The Union is taking steps to remedy the situation, thus opening up the details to other Agents within the sector who equally deserve, and have patiently waited for, the opportunities given to a select group.

HONOR LAST

 Fellow Union members take the time to look at Local 1613 of the National Border Patrol Council’s website and read the “HONOR LAST” column.  http://www.nbpc1613.org/Pages/Special/honorlast.htm  It has some good information to further assist many Union members in understanding why the vote of “No Confidence” in Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar, occurred.
 The Service places posters and placards on walls touting the phrase “Honor First”. This is most often placed in areas that the public would be encountered to demonstrate the “values” of the organization. This is also to instill confidence into the public’s mind that these values actually exist in all aspects of the organization. “Honor” is not just a word to be bandied about to explain the Service’s moral and ethical prowess, but a word that requires action for the value to be demonstrated not solely to the public, but all members of the organization.
 Some would have you believe that Honor comes with the position. However, it is often the position that requires an honorable person to fill it. Without honor initially, the position will be nothing more than a promotion predicated on a test score and writing ability, not on the character of the individual. So, when reading the “Honor Last”, keep these thoughts in mind. A sign on a wall stating the values of an organization is exactly that, a sign nothing more. It takes people of character to bring honor to an organization. An organization cannot instill honor into an individual, who has joined the organization. This would be the same expectation as when an individual demonstrates a propensity towards lying, that the individual’s affiliation with an organization would somehow instill in them integrity. Integrity is another word that is found on a poster in the workplace, further explaining the “values” of the organization.
 Honor derived from position would not pass the test of reason. Look to people, who have held high positions in history.  If only by virtue of their prestigious positions honor was derived, then history may have judged their actions more kindly. Many of them criminals and dictators placed in positions of power which commanded respect, but not honor. All were positions of prominence, yet the position did not alter the person’s character. If anything, it illustrated the type of damage, to the lives of others, a person without honor was capable of orchestrating when given power.
 An organization can place multiple signs throughout the work environment to demonstrate to the public a commitment to an ideology of character, yet the actions of the organization may be contradictory to that professed ideology. In short the position does not place the virtue in a person, the person places that virtue in a position.

NO CONFIDENCE!

On February 28, 2007, the National Border Patrol Council, during a convention in Corpus Christi, Texas, had taken a vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” in regard to the leadership of Chief Patrol Agent David Aguilar and the vote passed unanimously. The vote even reflected the opinions of some recently promoted managers, who at the time of the vote were bargaining unit members. They voted along side of their peers within the Union in condemnation of CPA Aguilar’s leadership. Those in attendance for this historic vote were 100 delegates from nearly every Border Patrol Sector in the United States. These delegates are all elected to represent the nation’s frontline Border Patrol Agents. The vote is unprecedented and demonstrates the deep divide between the leadership of CPA Aguilar and the frontline Agents he is supposed to be leading. The two primary reasons for the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” were the result of the prosecution of two of our nation’s Border Patrol Agents for the shooting and wounding of an illegal alien drug smuggler and the Chief Patrol Agent’s expressed desire that the immigration laws of the United States be changed, which has been otherwise referred to as “comprehensive immigration reform”. This is the same “comprehensive immigration reform” that would have provided an amnesty to many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens, who currently are in the United States contrary to our nations laws.

 On May 1, 2007, following the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” an associate of Chief Patrol Agent David Aguilar, Jeff Self was sent from Border Patrol Headquarters in Washington D.C. to musters at the Tucson Sector. His intent was to discuss the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” and how headquarters, “can improve communications with agents”. He was asking for a show of hands from Agents that supported the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” with regard to the leadership of CPA Aguilar. The impression made is that if Agents did not raise their hands, then they did not support the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE”. This was an attempt by management to somehow demonstrate a lack of support to the vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” by bargaining unit members. Also any Agent, who chose to raise their hand in support of the vote would more than likely face CAREER SUICIDE. The vote of “NO CONFIDENCE“ was held and the votes rendered by the elected members of the National Border Patrol Council, who are designated as the representatives elected to speak out on behalf of the rank and file agents in the field. Due to the votes being taken by the representatives of the rank and file agents, it should be clear that any discussions with regard to the vote should be addressed through the Union’s leadership not the membership.

 On July 17, 2007, CPA Aguilar has made it mandatory, that all Agents watch a video produced by headquarters, expressing his views with regard to the situation on the border. This video indoctrination is so important that it is actually being documented as a form of training on forms used specifically for that purpose. It shows CPA Aguilar explaining what Agents in the field are already aware of, “Who is crossing our borders illegally”. He goes on to say that he is not concerned with the 12-20 million illegal aliens in the interior of the United States, but he has clearly advocated the passage of “comprehensive immigration reform”, as explained by President Bush. “Comprehensive immigration reform”, which includes a path not only to Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident status but potentially to citizenship for many of the 12-20 million illegal aliens, who have broken our nations laws by entering our country illegally and who remain here today in contradiction to our nations laws.

 The Union has bumper stickers available that you can request from your union stewards expressing your support for the vote of “No confidence” and your opposition to providing amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens present in the United States, stating, “NO AMNESTY, NO CONFIDENCE” with the National Border Patrol Council’s emblem on a blue background. There are a limited number of these and the President of the local will provide the Vice Presidents with as many as possible to hand out.

 The shirt can be ordered from the Glenn Beck show. All of the proceeds support the legal defense of former Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, who were both prosecuted and persecuted for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug trafficker. Compean and Ramos are currently serving 11 and 12 year sentences in solitary confinement. They have been treated like criminals for trying to protect our nation’s borders and Ramos has already been seriously assaulted and injured by illegal alien inmates after the Bureau of Prisons managers failed to properly protect him. United States Attorney Johnny Sutton is still attempting to justify his vicious prosecution of these agents, in which he misapplied a sentence enhancer. This sentence enhancer is usually applied in cases to aggravate a felony when committed with the use of a weapon by “would be law breakers”, for example; bank robbers or drug dealers. If they continue to misapply this sentence enhancer, all law enforcement officers are carrying a 10 year penalty enhancer on the job daily. Your support is greatly appreciated not only by the former Agents but their families also.

The above shirt can be ordered from Glenn Beck by clicking here.

Download this Document (MS Word)

A CHANGE IN THE BORDER PATROL MISSION???

On August 16, 2007, in a news article published in the Laredo Morning Times, Chief Patrol Agent Carlos X. Carrillo of the Laredo Sector was quoted as saying, “The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants.” It goes on to read, “Noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents’ priority list.”, and he further emphasized “The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things.” He continued by stating that the mission of the Border Patrol is to protect the country from terrorists and terrorist weapons and he goes on to say that if terrorists come into the country, agents will be ready. His comments have drawn sharp criticism by several sources including some in the Congress of the United States. It defies common sense for someone to understand how a terrorist entering the country illegally would be caught, if this is in fact no longer a priority with regard to the mission of the Border Patrol. This would be a contradiction according to CPA Carrillo if the Border Patrol no longer takes an interest in apprehending illegal immigrants. Obviously, after making these statements CPA Carrillo has attempted to retract and replace his statements with more suitable comments. The difficulty in this lies in the fact that once a word is spoken it is hard to redirect a statement that is controversial and will draw criticism. This statement does demonstrate some semblance of agreement with Chief Patrol Agent Aguilar’s support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff Apologizes in Advance for the Enforcement of the United States Immigration Laws. On June 30, 2007, “But Mr. Chertoff warned ‘You will continue to see heart-wrenching examples of families being pulled apart’ as he enforces existing laws.” Washington Times.
 It seems odd that prior to him becoming Secretary of Homeland Security, he was not aware that his job required him to enforce our nations immigration laws, among the many other statutes of the United States Code that his organization is tasked with the enforcement of. Most people prior to the acceptance of position usually make sure that they are willing to accept the responsibilities placed upon them by that position. His words of compassion as written by the Washington Times do not instill confidence in the people of the organization that he leads, nor does it demonstrate the required zeal with which the officers of his organization are required to perform their duties on a daily basis. This compassion that he so aptly demonstrates through his comments to the Washington Times, if demonstrated by an officer of his organization would result in one of two potential outcomes:

1. A lengthy prison term for knowingly allowing an undocumented alien to walk away from you in violation of our nations laws.

2. Termination of employment from the organization that they work for, for malfeasance. Blatantly failing to take action and enforce the laws, when as an officer they are confronted with a violation of the laws that they are responsible for the enforcement of.