BY Mario Vasquez
The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), a union representing 14,000 U.S Border Patrol agents, endorsed Donald Trump for President on March 30. It was the union’s first presidential endorsement. In response, Not1More, a national campaign for immigrant rights, released a statement last week calling for the AFL¬CIO to end its affiliation with the border patrol agents, declaring “there’s no room for hate in the house of labor.”
Although the AFL¬CIO is a “staunch ally to immigrant communities,” according to Not1More organizer Marisa Franco, the NBPC’s endorsement represents a “very clear dilemma inside of labor.” “We wanted to shine a light on the fact that inside of the federation, there is this border patrol union that has a legacy of abuse and brutality in immigrant communities,” says Franco, stressing that the endorsement of Trump is objectionable because of his “racism, xenophobia, [and] misogyny.”
But NBPC is adamant that Trump is the “only” acceptable candidate given his outspokenness on the “destruction wrought by open borders.” They said in an endorsement announcement:
“We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro¬military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man. ...
When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.”
Case considered whether unions representing government employees can collect fees from workers who choose not to join
March 29, 2016
By Sam Hananel
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — In the clearest sign yet of the impact of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, labor unions on Tuesday won a high-profile Supreme Court dispute they once seemed all but certain to lose.
The justices announced they were divided 4-4 in a case that considered whether unions representing government employees can collect fees from workers who choose not to join. The split vote leaves in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the practice.
The result is an unlikely victory for organized labor after it seemed very likely the high court would rule 5-4 to overturn a system that’s been in place nearly 40 years. The court is operating with only eight justices after the death of Scalia, who had been expected to rule against the unions.
The one-sentence opinion does not identify how each justice voted. It simply upholds a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.