Janet Napolitano, mother of DACA, files lawsuit against Trump over phase out
Big Sis doesn’t want her creation going away.
Earlier this week, Professor Jacobson reported that 14 states were suing the Trump administration for the phasing out of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (aka, DACA).
Legal Insurrection fans may have been a bit surprised that California was not listed among those states.
It appears that our state’s officials were simply holding out to file one of their own, which is in keeping with the war they have apparently declared on President Trump.
California plans its own lawsuit against the federal government because it is disproportionately harmed by President Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Wednesday.
…The federal lawsuit will be filed in California, he said.
“California will sue the Trump Administration over its termination of the DACA program for one simple reason,” Becerra said. “Our state has become the world’s sixth-largest economy due in part to the success of over 200,000 Dreamers whose livelihoods have been put at risk by President Trump’s wrong-headed decision on DACA.”
However, the California case isn’t enough for the Obama’s Department of Homeland Security chief. As the President of the University of California Regents, Janet Napolitano will be filing her own lawsuit on behalf of the state institution.
The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco includes university president Janet Napolitano as a plaintiff.
…She said it was important for the public university system to “stand up for these vital members of the UC community.”
“They represent the best of who we are – hard-working, resilient and motivated high achievers. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy,” Napolitano said.
It seems she takes this issue most personally. Napolitano helped implement DACA after Obama signed the unconstitutional executive order that implemented it.
Napolitano, *affectionately* known as Big Sis when she was Secretary of Homeland Security, prepared a lengthy explanation for her suit in The Los Angeles Times. After all, she is the Mother of DACA.
My anger at DACA’s rescission doesn’t stem from pride in the work done to create this program, although I am very proud of the program. Instead it is motivated by the harm that eliminating DACA will cause to the so-called Dreamers at the University of California, the 10-campus system I now lead, and to the nearly 800,000 Dreamers across our country.
There are many points to challenge in her full op-ed. I will stick with two.
1) Probably the most irksome is the assertion that DACA participants are mere babes-in-arms, who need to be nurtured by this country.
Only individuals who were 31 years old or older on June 15, 2012 are ineligible for DACA. The age requirements apply to initial applications as well as renewals, and one of the only things we know about renewals is that no one will age out. As a result, there currently are individuals in their early thirties who are eligible for DACA, and assuming the program continues on, over time, greater numbers of DACA recipients will be over 31.
..Inaccurate information about the program—especially the age ceiling—is particularly troubling because the individuals who are actually applying for DACA tend to be on the lower end of the age range. In August, the Brookings Institution released a report based on FOIA-obtained data for applications filed through March of this year. The report revealed that 36 percent of applicants were between the ages of 15-18, 40 percent were between the ages of 19-23, and just 24 percent were 24 and over. The Center for American Progress (CAP) framed the data this way: the average age of all DACA applicants is 20 years old.
There are not enough spots to accommodate all the worthy California students at the better UC institutions, and Californians are the ones paying the taxes that the UC Regents enjoys spending.
2) The lawsuit is unnecessary. If DACA is such a wonderful idea, then she can call California’s congressional representatives to pass the measure the way it was should have been passed, and not via the pen-and-phone.
I, on the other hand, will me making an entirely different set of phone calls.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Apparently, Nappy didn’t read the Mr. Establhisment TWEETSSSSS.
He’s all in for DREAMERS. Nothing to fear. It’s the Obama/T-rump DACA now. He’ll “revisit” it if the Congress doesn’t make it legal.
He’s also all in on Obama’s bastardized version of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ as well as awarding federal benefits (work permits) illegally from the executive branch. He’s endorsing Obama doctrine with his DACA actions. Color me shocked.
The denial of what T-rump said, in plain language, is typical of cultists delusional adherence to the object of their devotion.
Too bad so many here gave up on being thinking citizens to become enthralled followers.
Seriously.
Is Napolitano a “secret” member of ISIS?
Maybe THIS is why she stole $175M from California while acting as UC President! She needs to defend all of Obama’s EOs.
Wonder if she is as “proud” of the stealing of funds as she is of her work in Homeland . . . all for the righteous, progressive Cause
she stole $175M from California
That’s outright slander. She did not steal anything.
I do respect your perspective that you add to the discussions here, Milhouse, but the intial reports were that the state audit found $175M that the UC System, under Napoliltano, had squirreled away without the knowledge of the Cali overseers of said budget. And the UC system was raising tuition, which resulted in an outcry.
Semantics aside, if someone hords public funds that an audit uncovers, i believe “stealing” is not outside the semantic range of words to describe said action. Especially in light of the State’s initial response.
Now, i did find the original articles of a result of a quick Google search, to confirm the amount of $175M.
“A scathing state audit Tuesday accused University of California President Janet Napolitano’s office of hiding tens of millions of dollars in reserves — even from its own board of regents — and creating a secret spending plan, while also padding the salaries and benefits of her staff.”
That article used the word “slush fund”, which i interpret in a perjorative fashion.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/25/california-auditor-slams-uc-presidents-office-over-175-million-in-hidden-funds/
A subsequent article by the LA Times calls the audit into question but does not state definitively if the audit was indeed wrong. It says the Regents have the authority to perform these financial plans, and gives some reasons why the budget might be prudent.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-uc-audit-20170428-story.html
That article suggests a reserve of $38M and not $175M.
Having lived in So Cal for 12+ and reading the constant reports of corruption in the papers (LA Times), I witnessed a lot of mismanagement.
Bottom line, my assessment falls within the range of the initial reports. I don’t read anywhere that she has been vindicated yet, but I am not actively researching this, as I don’t live in So Cal anymore.
Semantics aside, if someone hords public funds that an audit uncovers, i believe “stealing” is not outside the semantic range of words to describe said action. Especially in light of the State’s initial response.
It is absolutely “outside the semantic range of words to describe said action”, and is outright defamation. The university’s money is in the university’s account, and under its full control and possession. Not a penny of that money was ever stolen by anyone, and accusing someone of stealing is not a trivial offence. Shame on you for suggesting that it’s OK to call someone a thief when you know perfectly well that she is not.
Since the only purpose of the fund is to dole out cash and benefits to favored persons I think “stealing” is quite apt. If Napolitano thought what she was doing was righteous she wouldn’t have hidden it.
1. You have no evidence whatsoever about the fund’s purpose; you can only speculate. She claimed it’s a hedge against a spike in expenses and/or a drop in income.
2. Even if your speculation is correct, the fund remains the university’s property and under its full control, so there is no possible way to describe it as stolen. So long as she spends the money for the university’s purposes rather than her own — and there’s no reason to suppose she will do otherwise — it will remain unstolen. That she may benefit politically from such proper spending, and may steer it to favored vendors and away from disfavored ones without proper oversight is irrelevant; that may be corrupt but it’s not stealing.
4. The purpose of hiding it is pretty obvious, and in the university’s interest. It makes the university appear poorer than it is, and therefore helps fundraising.
As a hypothetical let’s say I had cancer, no insurance and a million dollars in savings. As I don’t want to spend my savings on medical treatment, I set up a go fund me and tell everyone I have cancer, no insurance and I’m broke. Where does that fall on the stealing to dishonest scale?
Hiding the money is not stealing at all. Fundraising on the basis of poverty may be fraud, but if so it’s not Napolitano doing it, it’s the university. Let’s be very very clear here: it’s perfectly obvious that when mochajava76 wrote that “she stole $175M from California” s/he was accusing Napolitano personally, not the university, of stealing, i.e. putting the university’s money in her own pocket. That was an outright lie. It’s also clear that what was supposedly stolen was the money put away, not any new funding that might have been higher than it would otherwise have been.
Also, the university did not claim to be broke. If you put up that GoFundMe without claiming to be broke, but without advertising the fact that you have $1M put away, that is not fraud at all. You have no obligation to inform potential donors how much money you have; so long as you don’t misrepresent it you can lawfully let them assume whatever they like. You might think this is unethical, but it’s certainly not illegal, which is what we’re discussing here.
Bad ideas are supposed to live forever.
@notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital, seriously, when you say something that retarded, you sound like a liberal accusing Trump of being a Nazi.
Not at all.
See links below for your edification. And it’s only a partial list.
JaNo. Once a statist thug, always a statist thug.
“They represent the best of who we are – hard-working, resilient and motivated high achievers.”
________________
LOL. We’re all waiting to see your proof, Nappy. Show us the majors, GPA’s, test scores, awards, and other “high” achievements of all the illegal aliens in the UC system, so that we can judge for ourselves what a great addition they are to our country.
And while you’re at it, show us how much of their tuition is being funded by taxpayers, how much of their health care is being funded by taxpayers, how much of their food is being funded by taxpayers, etc., while they pursue their degrees in hispanic grievance studies.
And then show us how much taxpayers are spending to house, educate, feed, and provide medical care (not to mention prosecution, jail, prison, etc.) for the illegal alien “dreamers” in CA who are not in UC’s system: the gang-bangers, the drop-outs, the teen mothers, the drug addicts, etc.
We want to evaluate the cost/benefit balance of keeping the “dreamers” here, and we can’t do that without all the facts. So pony up Nappy, you gigantic fraud.
Searching for or acknowledging facts that might put non-white/female people in a less than perfect light is racist/sexist. Big Brother demands you report for reeducation.
Your whole diatribe is vacant.
All the other side has to provide is ONE person who counters all your stereotyping. Which is easily done.
NONE of your assumptive generalizations are sound arguments.
The fundamental fact is that these people are here illegally. And that’s all that matters.
All the other side has to provide is ONE person who counters all your stereotyping. Which is easily done.
No, they don’t. They have to provide enough such people to show that their characterization of the class as “hard-working, resilient and motivated high achievers” is correct.
The thing is, they probably can do so. DREAMers grew up here, are acculturated here, so we should expect their performance to be the same as that of born Americans.
You might expect that, but you won’t find it to be true. Here in AZ, the illegal alien school kids typically show up at school significantly behind their same-age classmates. Many of them are also also seriously deficient in English skills, having parents who do not know or speak English to them at home.
I have no doubt that there are some high achievers among the “dreamers,” as there would be in any large class of people, but for Napolitano to claim that these illegal aliens “represent the best of who we are” is just utter bullshit.
Of course kids who’ve just arrived are not yet acculturated; American kids aren’t either. By the time they leave school they’re fully acculturated and indistinguishable from born Americans.
It’s Napolitano who is doing the stereotyping. She is the one claiming that all “dreamers” are outstanding people, and “represent the best of who we are.”
It’s bullshit. There was a DACA “dreamer” in California arrested for raping a child. There was a DACA “dreamer” in Florida arrested for killing a woman. There were 145 DACA “dreamers” discovered to be illegally registered to vote in North Carolina.
You can join Nappy’s fantasy about how all DACA “dreamers” are hard-working, high-achieving paragons of virtue if you choose. But I live in the real world, and I deal with these kids on a regular basis, and I know it’s not true.
How can she sue? This dog doesn’t have a dog in the fight.
She has standing, how?
….cause Janet Napolitano is standing with and for ISIS imo…..
Ask Milhouse – he has novel theories about standing.
You’re an idiot. The states’ standing is clear — and so is the university’s. The only thing they all lack is a case.
Are you stupid, or can’t you read? Her standing is right there in the post: she’s suing as the president of the University of California Regents, which clearly has standing because it would be harmed if many of its students were deported.
How is the institution harmed if its students are punished and deported for their crimes? I don’t see her arguing law enforcement harms the institution when its students are removed for other crimes.
Indeed, how are the students themselves harmed (in an unlawful way)? If you take Napolitano’s logic the entirety of criminal law becomes null and void when applied to illegal aliens.
First of all, none of the DREAMers have committed any crimes.
The institution is harmed when it loses large numbers of good, tuition-paying students, in whom it has invested a lot of time and resources, and of whom it expects great things.
All of the dreamers have committed crimes, to wit violation of Federal immigration law. There is no exception just because you were a minor when you did it (assuming you in fact were a minor then, considering no real verification of such is ever done), and their continued presence is an extension of the original crime.
As for “harm”, the law does not recognize harm as such when it is imposed on you by legal process, nor does it recognize harm in the rescission of benefits to which you are not entitled.
Idiot. Minors are incapable of committing crimes. They did not violate the immigration laws; their parents did. Any prosecutor who tried prosecuting them for it would end up disbarred at best.
There is no such thing as “an extension of the original crime”. Even adults who entered illegally, and committed a crime by doing so, are not committing a crime by continuing to be here; unauthorized presence in the USA not a crime.
As for “harm”, the law does not recognize harm as such when it is imposed on you by legal process, nor does it recognize harm in the rescission of benefits to which you are not entitled.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Any congizable harm is enough to give a party standing.
Minors can’t commit crimes? I guess all those juveniles sentenced have a cause for action then. Unlawful prosecution, if as you say they can’t commit crimes.
As for “any cognizable harm”, that’s stupid and you know it. If I age out of some government benefit I have clearly been harmed by its rescission, but no court would entertain a lawsuit demanding I continue to get it. I cannot be harmed, legally speaking, by not getting something I am not entitled to. The University of California is not entitled have any particular number or source of students, no matter what potential it claims they have (potential which, I suspect, is greatly exaggerated for political effect).
And you remain an idiot. Minors brought by their parents are not committing any crime. Crimes require mens rea, which they do not have. And yes, any cognizable harm gives you standing to sue. It does not mean you have a case. I’m beginning to suspect you have no clue what “standing” even means and are just using a fancy word you heard somewhere.
But we all can sue Janet Napolitano.
(Why does she look like Janet Reno come back from death and hell?)
We should.
Napolitano is a disgusting liberal pig.
Napolitano. Another mistake Arizona gave to the nation. Sorry.
Don’t be. We own it. To our lasting shame.
Yeah, I’m an Arizonan. I was apologizing to everyone else.
She was a disaster here in AZ.
There was much rejoicing when she left.
The progressive color diversity doctrine to favor illegal aliens, obfuscate the causes mass emigration, promote Democratic district gerrymandering, and to discriminate against legal immigrants and American children?
How very pro-choice.
This progressive idiot was Secretary of Homeland Security!
Illegal aliens are vital members of the UC community.
God help us
Just another traitor among many in the Zero Administration…..?
Well, it seems as if a few are popping up in Trump’s as well.
It’s been less than 8 months. They’ll be purged, just like obama/jarrett purged the US government of patriots and replaced them with sick slime like napolitano and lois lerner.
Interesting how many leftist women have arisen in government (including barry obama) and how horribly vicious and malignant they have proven to be.
It is amazing that a court would even consider entertaining a lawsuit which would require that anyone be forced to continue an illegal act or program, especially a government entity. This is tantamount to the State of Florida suing the federal government to stop prosecuting cocaine smugglers because enforcement of the law hurts part of the Florida economy. We are far beyond the looking glass now, folks. And getting further away from the real world every day.
What’s amazing is that you confuse the filing of a lawsuit with a court “entertaining it”.
Court’s don’t block suits. They hear them. They often hear them very briefly, but they don’t…and cannot…just hand-wave them away.
And you get further away from reality with each passing post.
How can she/they sue for something that was an Executive ACTION, and not even a law? Where is the standing?
The standing is clear; there is no question that the plaintiffs will suffer significant harm when this is implemented. What’s missing is a plausible case for why this is illegal. If someone harms you while acting entirely within the law, it’s your tough luck; you can’t recover your damages, because he had the right to inflict them on you.
I don’t understand the claims that Trump’s actions are “unlawful” or “unconstitutional”. Can someone please explain the liberal justification? I know it will be loopy, I’m just curious.
If Obama’s executive institution of DACA was legal, then Trump, as the POTUS, has exactly the same authority to rescind the order. (Just as Congress can repeal a statute passed in an earlier session – Congress, however, needs POTUS’ consent, or enough votes to overcome a veto, to actually repeal a law, so the details are different but the principle is the same.) If Obama’s executive institution of DACA was illegal/unconstitutional, then Trump not only has the authority to rescind it (because he’s POTUS with the same executive authority with respect to executive orders), his oath of office obliges him to do so.
How do they get “unlawful” and “unconstitutional” out of that? Seems to me this is just a policy difference, and on that count, the last election settled the question – Trump won.
Liberals Lie About Everything.
That’s all you need to remember.
You will find the states’ filing here, and the causes of action, such as they are, begin on page 51 of 58. The first 50 pages are pretty solid; they explain each state’s standing, in great detail, and give a fairly factual account of what Trump has done, and a plausible account of why he has done it, including allegations of racial animus. Page 51 is where it all comes apart, because while five causes of action are alleged, none of them make any sense.
1. 5th amendment, equal protection. The DHS memorandum targets Mexicans, and was motivated, at least in part, by Trump’s hatred of them. This is discrimination on the basis of national origin, which is unconstitutional.
2. 5th amendment, due process, information use. The Due Process clause requires the US government to be fair, and using the information DACA recipients provided against them is unfair, and therefore unconstitutional.
3. The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute. Rescinding DACA is all of the above, and therefore illegal.
4. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that federal agencies conduct formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights. The DHS memorandum violates this.
5. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to analyze the impact of rules they promulgate on small entities and publish initial and final versions of those analyses for public comment. The DHS memorandum violates this.
All five of these are so lacking in substance that if I were the judge I’d issue sanctions against the lawyers who filed it.
Big “Sis?” More like Big “Cyst.”
What a scummy woman:
Janet Napolitano braces for showdown in Sacramento over UC ‘slush fund’
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/30/scathing-audit-tests-uc-president-janet-napolitanos-political-skills/
Napolitano’s UC hid $175 million while demanding money, audit says
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/26/napolitanos-uc-hid-175-million-while-demanding-money-audit-says.html
In March 2009, Napolitano told the German news site Der Spiegel that while she presumes there is always a threat from terrorism: “I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
Napolitano was the subject of controversy after the release of a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment report that was seen as derogatory towards armed forces veterans…perceived future gun control measures, illegal immigration, the economic downturn beginning in 2008, the abortion controversy, and disgruntled military veterans’ possible vulnerability to recruitment efforts by extremist groups as potential risk factors regarding right-wing extremism recruitment…The Department of Homeland Security admitted a “breakdown in an internal process” by ignoring objections by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to an unnamed portion of the document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
Napolitano was criticized[37] for stating in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley that “the system worked” with regard to an attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 approaching Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
In July 2012, Napolitano was accused of allowing discrimination against male staffers within the Department of Homeland Security
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
apolitano was sued by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who claims he was pulled from his post interviewing suspicious travelers at JFK Airport after making a series of employment-discrimination complaints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
Napolitano has received criticism from the UC student body for making more than the United States President while proposing increases in tuition to compensate for the decrease in state support while providing a raise to 15 of the most highly paid executives at UC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
On April 25, 2017 the California State Auditor issued a report that Janet Napolitano and her University of California Office of the President secretly failed to disclose $175 million dollars and engaged in misleading budget practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
Shades of Obama: Napolitano has never married or had children; as a result, there has been speculation about her sexual orientation. This included some campaign activity in 2002 when “vote gay” fliers were posted next to her campaign signs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
I dislike her politics, but man is she HOT.
Beauty is in the eye of the holder:
Janet Napolitano & UC’s “Powerful Coterie of Lesbians”
https://www.unz.com/isteve/janet-napolitano-ucs-powerful-coterie
So if Janet wins her suit, Trump’s EO is overturned and we revert to Obama’s EO which sunsets DACA in ’18, right?
Racist scum bag she is! First and MOST important, DACA does not provide any permanent status for these illegals. If she cared, and SHE does NOT, she would argue for legal, permanent status. PERIOD.
What she wants is political power. One thing these worthless baby boomers learned is how to use race to generate power and money for wealthy white people. I will reiterate this for some who may not follow this issue. Bush was willing to sign a generous immigration reform bill with a pathway to citizenship for all of these “dreamers” and more. Obama, Clinton and Kerry filibustered in the Senate. They did so for personal political gain. Obame did not begin to care about this until he was safely reelected.
Hence, in 07, 08, 09, and 2010, when a bill could have been passed and signed, Obama and Democrats blocked it.
Good points. Sound analysis.