Following a series of immigration enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Los Angeles last week, members of Vermont’s congressional delegation—Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Becca Balint—issued sharp public statements condemning the operations. The lawmakers characterized the actions as authoritarian, illegal, and fear-driven, citing ICE raids and the federal deployment of National Guard troops in response to protests.
The remarks come amid escalating national debate over immigration enforcement and the limits of executive power. But the delegation’s comments have also drawn scrutiny from those who argue that the lawmakers are directing their criticism at federal employees lawfully performing their duties—and that their outrage is disconnected from the statutory framework Congress itself created.
Public Condemnation from Vermont’s Delegation
In a June 8 post on X Senator Sanders wrote:
“Trump’s authoritarianism in real time:
▪️Conduct massive illegal raids.
▪️Provoke a counter-response.
▪️Declare a state of emergency.
▪️Call in the troops.Unacceptable.”
Representative Balint followed shortly after, writing:
“ICE descended upon immigrant communities in LA, targeting innocent people just trying to live their lives, and when ICE was met with fierce opposition Trump deployed the National Guard. This is not ‘going after criminals,’ it’s a scary escalation meant to sow even more fear and division.”
Legal Basis for Federal Action
Despite the delegation’s alarm, both ICE enforcement operations and the federal deployment of the National Guard fall squarely within existing legal authority.
ICE actions are governed by long-established federal law, including:
- 8 U.S.C. § 1227 – addressing grounds for deportation
- 8 U.S.C. § 1357 – authorizing immigration officers to arrest, question, and detain individuals suspected of immigration violations
- INA § 287(a) – granting ICE agents authority to arrest aliens without a warrant under specific conditions
The National Guard deployment was authorized under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which allows the President to call National Guard units into federal service when regular forces are insufficient to enforce the law or maintain public order. While rare, this power has historical precedent dating back to civil rights-era interventions and major urban unrest in the 1960s and 1990s.
Contrary to some public claims, the Insurrection Act was not invoked. The Guard’s role was limited to supporting federal operations and protecting property during protests that had overwhelmed local law enforcement in multiple areas of Los Angeles.
Targeting of Federal Employees Raises Workplace Concerns
Senator Peter Welch’s own official website offers information and links to several federal resource pages for civil servants, citing the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) as critical mechanisms for protecting employees from workplace discrimination, retaliation, and politically motivated interference. Despite this, Welch has issued no public statement in defense of ICE personnel — all of whom are federal employees — even as fellow delegation members publicly condemned them for lawfully executing immigration enforcement actions.
While the delegation’s public criticism focused on immigration policy, the practical effect was to direct outrage at career federal employees, not lawmakers or political appointees. ICE agents are tasked with carrying out the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president — including by members like Welch and Sanders.
These employees are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other federal workplace statutes.
Some have described the political targeting of these employees as a form of occupational discrimination — where individuals are singled out not for misconduct, but for the lawful duties they are assigned to perform.
ICE agents are being targeted for their occupation, not for any misconduct, raising serious questions about fairness and selective treatment among public servants.
According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, all federal employees must be treated “fairly and equitably” and protected from “improper political influence.” While members of Congress have broad authority to critique federal policy, publicly condemning law-abiding employees for executing that policy raises concerns about workplace protections.
Under OSC guidance, retaliation, coercion, or politically motivated harassment — even indirect — may violate the spirit, if not the letter, of federal employment law. When lawmakers target employees for the duties they are legally obligated to perform, they invite scrutiny under Prohibited Personnel Practices protections.
Delegation Had—and Still Has—the Power to Change the Law
Perhaps most striking to critics is that all three members of Vermont’s delegation are lawmakers. Both Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch served in Congress during the Obama administration, when Democrats held the presidency, the House, and the Senate. No serious efforts were made during that time to dismantle ICE, change its statutory authority, or rewrite immigration law.
In fact, during the Obama years, deportation numbers reached record highs. According to ICE records, President Obama oversaw more removals than any president before or since. Yet, during that time, neither Sanders nor Welch publicly condemned ICE operations as illegal or authoritarian.
Rather than condemning employees for enforcing existing law, observers point out that members of Congress have the authority—and the responsibility—to introduce legislation if they believe the law is unjust. Choosing instead to publicly attack civil servants for doing their jobs raises concerns about political accountability and workplace fairness.
Conclusion
The federal enforcement actions in Los Angeles, while politically contentious, appear to fall within existing legal frameworks. The heated reactions from Vermont’s congressional delegation reflect growing national divisions over immigration policy, but have also sparked debate over the treatment of federal employees and the responsibilities of lawmakers.
With Congress empowered to change the laws it criticizes, and federal employees bound to enforce the laws as written, critics say the real issue may not be how the law is enforced—but whether those condemning it are willing to do the work of reform.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #FederalEmployees #ICE #VermontPolitics
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply