Supreme Court to Decide if the Trump Terminated DACA Unlawfully

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE IF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED DACA UNLAWFULLY

Three lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration challenging the federal governments right to end DACA by Executive Order.

• Regents of the University of California v. Department of Homeland Security
• Vidal v Aleenan
• NAACP v. Trump

These three cases have been consolidated into a single case and will be heard by the United States Supreme Court on November 12, 2019.

This ruling will effect college admissions policies publicly funded colleges and Universities.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA USED STUDENT FUNDS TO FILE THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ON BEHALF OF DACA STUDENTS.

IS AN IMMIGRATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY?

DID THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT; JANET NAPOLITANO, MIS-USE TAXPAYER FUNDS TO FILE THIS LAWSUIT?

The University of California is a taxpayer funded public land grant institution, and as such, California residents are to be given priority enrollment.

While citing a lack of adequate funding, the University of California denies admission to approximately 10,700 highly qualified California resident students each year in order to sell their seats to out-of-state and international students for a profit.

The UC then uses the profits to provide free tuition, room and board to undocumented community college transfer students that have much lower test scores and GPA's.

link: Undocumented Students Initiative

link: Types of Aid

The University of California is a public trust, administered by “The Regents of the University of California,” with full powers of organization and government. The President of the University of California is not empowered to unilaterally set policies that discriminate against California resident students and violate state and federal laws.

The UC Master Plan for Higher Education has an "Access Guarantee" that guarantees all First-Time Freshman who have a "lawful presence" admission to the University of California based solely on merit, as a matter of law.

A "First-Time Freshman" is a California resident student who graduated in the top 12.5% or (1/8th) of their high school graduating class, and is entering the UC directly from high school as a freshman in college.

The "Access Guarantee" of the UC Master Plan is for first-time freshmen who are California "legal" residents aka ""lawfully present". It is not for undocumented students, community college transfer students, out-of-state, or international students.

Is it a mis-use of taxpayer funds for the University of California to spend taxpayer dollars to file a federal immigration lawsuit on behalf of students who have entered the United States illegally and have no "lawful presence" in the United States?

IN 2012, JANET NAPOLITANO WAS THE HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA. SHE WROTE THE GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS AGAINST DACA RECIPIENTS.

In the 2012 memorandum, it specifically states that:

"This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here."

The DACA memorandum clearly states, that DACA recipients are not considered "lawfully present" in the United States and therefore, states have no legal obligation to any illegal immigrants when it comes to a college education. [The Supreme Court ruled that states do have a legal obligation to K-12 students]

The 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals in Estrada v. Becker recently held:

"As DACA recipients, they simply were given a reprieve from potential removal; that does not mean they are in any way “lawfully present” under the Act. See Ga. Latino All. for Human Rights v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250, 1258 n.2 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Deferred action status, also known as ‘non-priority status,’ amounts to, in practical application, a reprieve for deportable aliens. No action (i.e., no deportation) will be taken . . . against an alien having deferred action status.” (alteration in original) (quoting Pasquini v. Morris, 700 F.2d 658, 661 (11th Cir.1983)))"

Under federal law, states have no legal obligation to college students that are not "lawfully present". And, states that give in-state tuition to illegal aliens while charging higher tuition to out-of-state citizens US citizens ho are "lawfully present" are in violation of federal equal protection laws.

AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, JANET NAPOLITANO ENGAGED IN INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CA RESIDENT STUDENTS WHO WERE "LAWFULLY PRESENT" AND IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT STUDENTS THAT WERE NOT "LAWFULLY PRESENT" IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW

Under a new Community College TAG program (Transfer Access Guarantee), the University of California guarantees admission to community college transfer students at reduced costs (subsidized tuition and living expenses). These transfer students are admitted by completing 7 courses at Community College earning a 2.4 GPA (2.8 GPA for nonresident students). While there should be a path for Community College students to transfer to the UC, the California Master Plan Mandate never intended to guarantee community college transfer students a place within the UC system if it would displace a recent high school graduate in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class

The University of California's new TAG program is Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is illegal in the state of California.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ADVOCACY

Janet Napolitano, as President of the University of California used taxpayer dollars to engage in political advocacy of far left progressive ideals with the intent to use her office as President to punish California taxpayers by denying educational opportunity only to American citizens.
While denying admissions to California residents (First-Time Freshmen) citing a lack of adequate funding, Janet Napolitano spent millions of California taxpayer dollars on the following Presidential Initiatives.

University of California Office of the President at page 41

• Carbon Neutrality Initiative
• Global Food Initiative
• Student Public Service Fellowships
• Public Service Law Fellowships
• UC- Mexico Initiative
• UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement
• Undocumented Students Initiative
• Cuba Faculty Matching Funds
• Smoke and Tobacco Free Student Fellowships

For the class of 2020 the UC is no longer guaranteeing California resident students a place within the UC at all, only on a "Space Available Basis". They will sell all the seats this year.

CONCLUSION
The University of California's admissions policies and financial decisions discriminate against California resident students who are "legally present" and benefit illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration and equal protection laws.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
There needs to be a Federal Criminal Investigation into the Admissions Policies and Finances of the Office of the President of the University of California