Why I'm Suing the Trump Administration Over DACA

By Janet Napolitano, Los Angeles Times

11 September 17

s secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a little more than five years ago I signed the directive that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. On Tuesday, President Trump ended DACA on little more than a whim. On Friday, in my capacity as president of the University of California, I filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prevent the government from stripping DACA recipients of their ability to live, study and work in our country free from fear of deportation.

By definition and practice, DACA recipients were brought to the United States when they were children. They know no other country other than the one we share. They pay taxes. They contribute to our economy — nearly 55% of them have bought cars, 12% have bought homes and 6% have launched businesses that create jobs for U.S. citizens. They seek to serve in our military and better themselves through education. In all ways except one, they are American.

I recognize that it is unusual for a former Cabinet official to sue the agency she once led. It may be even more unusual to challenge as unconstitutional, unjust and unlawful the elimination of a program originally established by the plaintiff — me — in this litigation.

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.

As UC president, I’ve seen the exceptional contributions Dreamers are making to the nation. They represent the very best of our country. All DACA recipients have gone through a rigorous application process that verifies they are productive members of our communities and have clean records, including more than 100,000 who have had their applications renewed by the Trump administration.

Yet the Department of Homeland Security, in rescinding DACA, baselessly claims that the program was unlawful. It offers no rationale based on the merits of DACA itself, but rather on the purported illegality of a separate program with different rules and aimed at different immigrants (the parents of DACA-eligible young people), a program that never went into effect. That justification is flat out wrong. The DACA program was a legal exercise of the department’s prosecutorial discretion and no court has found DACA to be invalid.

In fact, in 2014, the Department of Justice office that reviews the constitutionality of executive branch actions determined that DACA was lawful. Now the Trump administration’s DOJ offers no reasoned analysis for its about-face.

The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits federal agencies from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, but that is exactly what Homeland Security has done in its rescission of DACA. It has entirely failed to consider the reliance interest of the Dreamers, such as their expectation that they could study, work and live in the only country they know, or if the program ends, what will happen to the communities and universities where DACA recipients thrive.

Finally, the department’s rescission of DACA tramples on the due process rights of the University of California and its students and employees. DHS cannot take away those rights by executive fiat.

The Trump administration’s action harms DACA recipients from a legal perspective and harms our country from a moral perspective. The government is telling these young people that , as a country, we do not value their obvious worth, and that we intend to treat them no differently than a recent adult border crosser. This is wrong, unjust, mean and legally dubious.

As president of the University of California, it is my job to protect the students on our campuses. As the author of DACA, I know its legal basis and its aims. As both, I am suing the administration because its actions on Tuesday will harm innocent young people and, by extension, all of us.

We Have No System to Deal With Escalating Climate Damages. It's Time to Build One.

By David Roberts, Vox

11 September 17

The devastation Hurricane Irma is likely to bring to South Florida this weekend will only make it clearer still.

ack in April, Chris Flavelle wrote a prescient (and excellent) story in Bloomberg on the “nightmare scenario” for South Florida homeowners. The nightmare, in so many words, is that real estate markets will catch on to climate change ... and tank.

We know that flooding is already a problem in many parts of Southern Florida and that the loss of mangroves and wetlands and the spread of impermeable surfaces will only make it worse.

On top of that, sea levels are rising.

Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060. By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged.

Right now, relatively few homeowners are selling in response to this worry — “pessimists are selling to optimists,” as the story puts it. And home values only seem to be going up. Miami’s economy is booming.

But it’s becoming clearer, and more public, that some of these markets are doomed. It’s not a matter of if, but when. (For an in-depth look at Miami’s grim fate, read Jeff Goodell’s piece in Rolling Stone.) The devastation Hurricane Irma is likely to bring this weekend will only make it clearer still.

Pluralistic ignorance: we don’t know that we all know about climate change

What’s going on right now in South Florida real estate is a case of what sociologists call “pluralistic ignorance” — when members of a group adopt a norm, belief, or habit because they mistakenly believe other members of the group share it.

For example, research has found that most college freshmen don’t particularly want to drink heavily, but they do it because they think all the other college freshmen want to do it. Surveys during the civil rights era found that many white people supported desegregation privately but opposed it publicly, because they thought all the other white people opposed it.

Pluralistic ignorance is, roughly speaking, when we are mistaken about what we believe.

So it is with climate change and real estate. More and more people see the flooding, read the stories about sea levels, and worry privately — but everyone else seems to be going along as if nothing was wrong, so they go along too. All those people paying high prices for coastal property in Miami must know something. They can’t all be wrong. Right?

The thing about pluralistic ignorance is, when it collapses, it can collapse quick. And that, in a nutshell, is the nightmare scenario for South Florida homeowners — that people stop buying, which makes other people stop buying, and the next thing you know, you’ve got billions in stranded assets. Albert Slap of Coastal Risk Consulting calls the potential collapse of real estate values “the next black swan,” but that’s not quite right. Black swans are, by definition, unexpected. We know this is coming!

We have not begun to think through how to deal with South Florida and places like it

We know that South Florida is slowly, incrementally going to become uninhabitable. We know that, as that process continues, the region will experience economic and social convulsions. How will governments deal with that, and with similar processes to come in other coastal areas and in the hotter, drier areas of the Southwest?

We ... have no idea. To date, the best we’ve been able to do is occasionally and inconsistently dump money on victims. This darkly funny passage from Flavelle’s story gives a flavor.

There is as yet no federal policy on buying out properties that will be lost to sea-level rise. Last January, President Barack Obama’s administration awarded $48 million to relocate a small Louisiana town sinking into the Gulf of Mexico, the first such project funded by the federal government. But the administration made clear the project wasn’t intended to be a precedent, and it rejected a request from an Alaska village in the same situation.

South Florida has likewise failed to get federal help for more modest relocations. In 2013, officials in Miami-Dade County requested $2.3 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a project that included buying out a handful of homes in a low-income neighborhood called Arch Creek, far from the glamor—and tax base—of Miami Beach.

“Most of those homes had 8 to 10 inches in the house,” said Terry Parker, the county official in charge of the request. The plan was to tear them down and let the land revert to creek bed. But the county never got the money and hasn’t asked for a federal buyout since.

So we pay to relocate this village, but not that one; protect this community, but not that one; compensate these victims, but not those.

What’s clear is that we have not begun to develop any kind of systemic approach or understanding of how to deal with escalating climate damages. And that is unfortunate — the questions South Florida is beginning to face today are questions many other places will face in decades to come.

Here are just a few of those questions, off the top of my head:

• Who decides which properties will be allowed to rebuild?
• Who will pay for rebuilding and subsequent insurance?
• Who decides which cities or areas will be defended — by sea walls, dredging projects, canals — and which will be abandoned?
• If people must relocate, who decides when, and which people?
• Who pays for relocation?
• Which communities take in the relocated?
• Who decides on compensation for the relocated?
• What are the legal rights of the relocated? Who is legally liable for foreseeable damage to coastal property?
• What is the value of non-monetary attachment a home or place? Is sentiment counted? Who decides on its value?
• Should these decisions be made by lawmakers and technocrats or popular votes and referenda? Ad hoc or planned in advance? Determined by market forces or by some collective judgment of fairness?
• If, as seems inevitable, the poor suffer first and worst from the impacts of extreme weather, what role should equity play in decisions about relocation?

All these questions are going to come up, in Florida and elsewhere. To date, they have been rare (we still see weather disasters as unusual anomalies) and decided on a distributed, ad hoc basis. Such decisions are often driven by emotion and whim — the sympathy and fellow-feeling that follow a disaster and the inevitable loss of interest and attention as time passes.

That’s how decisions were made in the wake of Katrina and Sandy. It’s probably how decisions will be made in the wake of Harvey, and Irma, and this season’s apocalyptic Western wildfires.

But we can’t keep making decisions like that forever. As David Wallace-Wells puts it, we have been “engineering, first in ignorance and then in denial, a climate system that will now go to war with us for many centuries, perhaps until it destroys us.” That’s a rather vivid way of putting it, but yes, climate-related disasters and other impacts will grow more frequent and severe.

We won’t be able to just dump sympathy money on each victim and move on. As Philip Stoddard, mayor of South Miami, said of the prospect of bailouts for homeowners who wait too long to sell: “There isn’t enough money.” Sympathy will only go so far, with “500-year floods” happening every three years and the West burning every summer.

Sooner or later, instinctively parochial instincts will impose themselves. People will start to resent sending money to beleaguered areas over and over again. People will want more money for their own cities and states, less for others. “Fiscal conservatism” will be deployed as a tool to deny remediation funds to disfavored areas or groups. Ad-hoc-ery will lead to injustice, as it so often does.

The more we talk about this stuff and try to make good plans and decisions in advance, the less likely it is that decisions will be made hastily, emotionally, and inequitably. My grim prediction is that decisions in South Florida in the wake of Irma will be a case study in the wrong way to do it.