Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Connected Government
- Consolidating Mission-critical Systems
- Constituent Servicing
- The Data Privacy Imperative: Safeguarding Sensitive Data
- Eliminating the Pitfalls: Steps to Virtualization in Government
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- Government Cloud Brokerage: Who, What, When, Where, Why?
- Government Mobility
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mobile Device Management
- The Modern Federal Threat Landscape
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- Understanding the Intersection of Customer Service and Security in the Cloud
Shows & Panels
ICE union leader denies alleged opposition to immigration policy
Friday - 1/13/2012, 10:02am EST
A squabble is brewing between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the union that represents its rank and file agents.
At issue is the training that needs to be conducted so ICE can implement the Obama Administration's new approach to deportations of illegal immigrants. That policy calls for the agency's scarce deportation resources to be focused on the most dangerous criminal aliens, rather than having ICE deport every illegal immigrant it comes across.
The New York Times reported last week that ICE's union was refusing to participate in the training because it opposes the new policy. But Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, told The Federal Drive with Tom Temin that's categorically untrue.
"The union in no way delayed the implementation of the training program or the policy," Crane said. The National ICE Council, which is part of the American Federation of Government Employees, represents Enforcement and Removal Operations officers within ICE.
"The union never contested the actual policy itself," he said. "We simply asked for training. It's a dynamic change in what we do, regardless of what the agency says."
According to Crane, the union has been vocal in asking for training for field managers and officers who are "completely clueless" on how to implement the administration's policy in the field. It requested that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE work with the union to execute the President's executive order. "Had we been able to work with the agency from the beginning, the training program would be ready to go right now," he said.
"On November 17, ICE launched a comprehensive training program on the appropriate use of the June 17, 2011 Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum," ICE wrote in an e-mail to Federal News Radio. "This program consists of scenario-based training that emphasizes how the Prosecutorial Discretion Memorandum should be utilized in order to focus immigration enforcement resources on ICE priorities.
"This program builds on training that has already occurred since the June 17, 2011 memorandum was issued. On September 29 and October 24 2011, [DHS Secretary Janet] Napolitano met with supervisory ICE officers and attorneys to discuss the agency's enforcement priorities and the importance of these initiatives. ICE Director [John] Morton, along with other members of ICE's senior leadership team, have traveled around the country to discuss the importance of consistent application of prosecutorial discretion. Late last year, Director Morton and his senior leadership traveled to Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, New York, and Newark to personally discuss the appropriate use of this policy.
"ICE is awaiting concurrence from the union to provide this training to field officers. We look forward to their response to our proposal."
ICE declined a request from Federal News Radio for an on-air interview.
Shut out of discussions
Crane said that he thinks the agency took too long to disseminate the policy and to get the training process underway. "We're just absolutely in shock now to see in the New York Times that we've been excluded from this process for approximately three years that we are now being blamed for holding up the policy and the training program when we've only been involved for 19 days," he said.
"We have no intention of holding [the process] up," Crane said. "We just want to make sure that we have adequate training for our officers and field managers."
Unlike unions in the private sector, federal employee unions such as the National ICE Council aren't allowed to bargain over wages, vacations and benefits packages nor do they have the right to go on strike.
"Our main benefit to the government, our main purpose really is to bring experience ... to the table and discuss those issues and make policies like this better," Crane said. "We just haven't had that."
Nineteen days before Crane's interview with Federal News Radio, ICE notified the ICE Council by certified mail that the union now had the opportunity to bargain with the agency over the policy. The union was given 22 days to respond. The union is now taking its first look at what Crane described as "a very, very small, insignificant amount of information" provided by ICE. From that, the union will generate a list of proposals on how to change the training program.
Crane admitted that the union is concerned about both the training and the actual policy. "We're very confused by the policy," he said. "It is a very dramatic change in the way that we conduct enforcement now."