The deferred action for childhood arrivals, or daca program. On thursday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration cannot immediately and daca, the Obama Era Program has allowed roughly 700,000 young immigrants who were brought to the u. S. By the parents, to live and work without fear poof dertation. The recipients must pass background checks, and reapply every two years, to continue anticipating in ogthe m. Conservative chief Justice John Roberts sided with the courts liberal members in the 5 to 4 decision. Joining me now from skype is santa tyclara univer school of our professor, professor gula sacrum, thanks for joining us. California is home to the largest number of dreamers. Even though this is a federal progm, are there difference in how states treat dr. Opportunities that ar available to them . There is certainly a huge variation across the uned dates about the types of protections states gave to undocumented people, generally. And then specifically, policy h related to yoand children. California is one of the most protective states in the United States, it allows undocumented children to access public universities, get funding for the, to access drivers licensed in fields lilaw and ly medicine, and that is not the case in every state. Tpreme urt ruling may only be a temporary reprieve, could you tell us why that is, and what we should be looking for in the days ahead . Rt justice ro chief Justice Roberts opinion is a very narrow opinion, at it is telling us is that it is not that the Trump Administration cant take away daca, but that if they wato take it away they need to do it in the right way, and gave the ght reasons, and actually consider carefully the actions that they are taking. If dhs wanted to, today, domorrow, they could such a thing. They could promulgate a memo that says here are all the reasons we have considered and now we are providina better basis for taking away the program. Do you think that will happen . This has clearly been g somethat has been on the mind of the President Trump and s, the department of homeland security, for some time. That said, its an election year, we are six months out from that, or five months out from the, so all of those factors might play into whether dhs really s the stomach to go back and change, and give another reason for taking away daca. While this decision was 5 4, as close as possible, there was consensus around another toc, especially discrimination. Could you talk you through that both, in the night circuit, the university of calirnia case and the new york case, they were consolidated for the Supreme Court. The courts in both of those cases thought there was enough evidence that dacarescission would be based on animus rticular. Tinos and mexicans in if you look at the program, 80 of dr. Recipients are mexican, 90 are mexican and, or, central american. The claim was that the rescission isnt based on reason but based on racial animus, hatred, or prejudice against the group. Supreme court 81 said there was insufficient evidence from this to go forward, the only dissenter on that point was justice sotomayor, and that could have broader implications for racial claims and immigration generally outside of this content and in wh way . I think if you look at trump versus away, the case about immigration bans or travel bans, the muslim back, again, in that case, the supreme jocou ty on a 5 4 majority, found that all the evidence of antimuslim statements by President Trump himself,were insufficient to make out a case of religious discriminaon, as against the proclamation that banned the entry of people from majority muslim countries. Here again, you have that same sort of rationale. So it seems like part of a broader project, at least on the part of Justice Roberts, and he is really the court not discrimination claims,the immigration context. There are a large number of immigrant children that are undocumented and not covered under daca, example anyone who wasnt in the United States with the Program Began in 2012,e can yo us about the population . Both here in california nationally . Sure, ultimately daca and deferred action is never a complete program, theyll have requirements and quite strict requirements that leave out large swabs of the population. So i think if we arthinking forward, the only real fit that many people have said about this, is legislative. Need to rethink ether there are pathways to regularize status, not just for dr. Recipits but for a much broader group, who are after daca was create 2012, that is when you got the significant Child Migration surges, in 2014. Again in 2016 and continued with people fleeing violence in central americancountries. So the number of people who are not covered by deferred action programs is only going grow. The daca soprogram doesnt offer a path to citizenship, so are these recipients in legal limbo if they cant become citizens or permanent residents . They certainly are, what at least for temptime, ntee, that they will not be removed. And during that time they can , wo get Work Authorization and go to school. But that is all it provides. Until congrean steps in congress is the only body that can do this through legislation, they would have to pass ls that provide some health to regularize status, as congress did in 1986 when it allowed for a masslegalization upeople. To two or 3 million could you zoom out for us and tell us what the next pressing battle immigration will be . Well, one legislatively, and politically obviously, there is the battle ov a more generalized comprehensive, reform that would increase channels of legal migration and also legal pathwa here unlawfull if we are looking for just court battle, there is a e number, of them has to do with detention and the use of the detention system, and prolonged detention. On a given ght there are 50,000, 60,000 immigrants in cages, be locked in cages not r criminal activities. Second, administration is, through Agency Action, much like in the docket case, but there are other ty s of agency actito attempting to got what is our asylum system. Essentially taken away. And i think that ll be another front of significant dedication in the coming months read and, this rulingd the courts earlier ruling, about lgbtq arplus rits, more liberal than a conservative court, should we look for that is assigned for unexpected decisions . Yeah i think it is a littleth to of an evidence to suggest that the court is somehow turning in its ideological bent, the employment discrimination for lgbtq folks, it was in many ways, a fairly simple legal decision. D i think that that is evidenced by the fact that there was a 6 3, a very resy lt to come to. The docket decision 5 4, buct the is, i think ief Justice Roberts would have written this decision whether itcowas a ervative Agency Action or a liberal Agency Action, because the grounds are quite narrow. All he is saying, ise that ther is a low bar for Agency Action. Thank you, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Janet napolitano started her presidency at the university of california seven years ago, now th campuses empty by the coronavirus, napolitano is overseeing Distance Learning for 285,000 units across the you. In august she is steppingomdown er post, to join the faculty at the Goldman School of Public Policy at uc berkeley. Joing me now by skype from oakland, is university of california resint, janet napolitano, she has also served as a governor of arizonand thsecretary of homeland security. Resident napolitano, thank you for joining us. Thank you. I was especially glad to have you want because you have a cldae connection to , offered the program under president obama when you headed the departme homeland security, what is your response to the Supreme Court really, and particularly now that the esident has indicated hewill fight it. Obviously very pleased by the Supreme Court really, it allows all of our daca students and the thousands of daca students around the country, to breathe a sigh of reliefat hey will not immediately see the program terminated, and themselves being subject to deportation and loss of their Work Authorization. And, frank, as to the president dont understand why he is so intent on going after these young people. They were brought typically under the age of six, they have been raised in this country. They really only know the united dates as home, and they are valuable, co ributing members our community, of our country, and i just dont know why has such a problem with them. You know when the tradp nistration first announced in 2017 it would resend the daca program, you and the uc board of regents were one of thfirst lawsuits that was filed, why is this issue so important to the uc system . Se becthe university of california has about 1700 docket students in its student body, to begin with. And secoly, a challenger of the program, very consistent with the iversity of californias values, values of inclusion, and values of equity and, you know the daca program, really helps so many young people brought to this country, as i have said, typically under the age of six. Who only know the United States as home. It allows them to be in the country safely, and also to get work. Authorizatio so, we have students who we want to speak out for, and it was very consistent with our values. I want to turn now race in particular and gender, it has been illegal for years to consider race and gender in College Application for this week the uc board of regents he signalwant that practice to change. What is wrong with being blind to gender or race, inthe application process . Well, because we dont live in a race blind society, and i think the events of the past week or so have served to illustrate that. And in uc admissions we look at 14 factors, the only factor we cant consider is race, ethnicity, or gender, which are very important as to the identity of a student. So, its an artificial limitation. Their applications. And what e some ofthe other qualities that you are looking at . E wok at things like work experience, we look at things like did they take all e ap classes they could have taken, we look obviously at their grades. We look at their extracurricular activities. You know, all kinds of things. Just cant consider race, ethnicity, or gender. And as i have said, its just such an arficial limitation. Protest against poliano, brutality and systemic inequality have gripped our nation. And they have shown very clearly, that there is racismur ininstitutions, including education. Could you talk about how that has impacted the uc system and changes thatmay be coming . Let me begin by saying that like everyone i was horrified at watching georgefloyds murder, and then hearing about the other murders, they just illustrated a problem that we have h our country going back centuries. And it is time to bring it out in the open, to confront it, to deal with it. And that goes with universities as well. In conversations acrothe ging campus constituencies, with respect to how members of underrepresented groups believe they are treated, what we can do and do better. And if the syst level we are focused on university policing, i had attacked a task force where we camea up with number of recommendations which we implement it, but we will go more we can do, sothat our relationship with our police is one of a partnership, and we are fostering a culture offe on our campuses, but not overbearing police presence. He also dealing with the pandemic, uc davis said they will reopen their campus in the fall, why that particular school, and what is happening with the other mpuc es . All of our campuses will be opening to some degree, we will be hybrid, meaning thatmuch of the Academic Program will still be deliveredonline, just as has been the spring. And we are spending thsummer really upping our game in terms of the quality of that online delivery. But, we also recognize the valuof the in person experience. And so, to the degree they can safely do it, and we havety sahresholds, the campuses have to be. The campuses are seeking to reopen, and have some classes in person. Al an, to some degree, reopening the dormitories. There is this ongoing cultural discussion about what viewpoints are appropriate to represent in the public sphere, 27 you shut wn an appearance by a rightwing commentator following violent protests on campus, and more recently there has been sha backagainst an incendiary conservative editorial price them in her tom cotton, arguing in favor of military intervention. To the response against police totality. Are there some voices that ot shouldbe heard . In the current marketplace of ideas . Iv you know the sity of california is the home to the free speech movement. When we shdown the bible at monopolist eventberkeley, uthat was to protect milo, e because otest had gotten out of hand. Buwe subsequently had low back on campus, for what was called free speech week. It cost us a lot of money, to provide the extra security that s necessary. Particularly on univernts, campuses, should be heard. They should be debated, they should be read should be refud but that should not be censored. The world is shifting have for your successor and what would you encourage th next generation to focus on learning . Myhe advice to successor would be to spend time getting to kno the university, trav around the campuses, meet with the students and faculty and staff. Learn what the campus aspirations are, and set one or two big goals for the university. That you can mobili the whole system around. One of my big goals for example, was thatwe would be Carbon Neutral by the year 2025. To lead by way of example, in the fight against the change. And with respect to educating the ne generation, i think we cannot lose sight of what i believe to be the greatest existential threat confronting us. And that is the warming the planet. So i do hope my successor will continue the pursuit of that an goalhave some of his or her own. President janet napolitano, thank you so mu. Thank you. Facing a monday deadline lawmakers in saamento passed a mporary budget, talks are continuing with governor gavi o nen how to close a 54 billion deficit created by the coronavirus pandemic. Steep cuts to education anhe thcare services limb, unless Congress Approves a new round of funding. For cashstrapped rngonts. Meanwhile, on capitol hill, the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Held its first hearing on Police Reform. Senate democrats, led by california senator kamala harris, and new jersey senator cory booker support bans on chuckles and no knock warrants. On wednesday, gop senator tim scotn unveiled his Police Reform bill. That House Speaker nancy pelosi and other prominent democrats,d denounr not going far enough. The majority me now by skype to discuss all this, from San Francisco with kqed politi , is run only by skype. Start with the money, state lawmakers passed a budget but we are in this unusual position in wch this budget isis not actually finally is, can you talk us through this and what we will have a real budget . We are in this position because of coronavirus pandemic and that onomic cliff the califoia fell off, a 54 billion budget deficit thatly suddppeared after a surplus had been projected just months before. Lawmakers have to pass a budget by june 15, ey did pa something, it is not exactly what the governor wants, he is pushing for deeper cuts to helph deal witdeficit, that would take place basically july begins. H the fiscal year theyd like to see those cuts be sort of laid out a few months, in Hopes Congress would come out with more money and t also to send be quite as deep, to move around many in what critics call budget gimmicks. Run, lets talk about this with you, so you ar, an ea what are the chances that there will be another round of stimulus funding, and have democrats past the tree trillion dollar stimulus bill a month ago, it hasnt been forwarded to the senate. We are hearing from secretary Jerome Powell that he would like to see americanget more cash relief. Absolutely and we have also heard from one of the economic advisers in the white house, peter navarro, that would like to see the next package be at least 2 trillion now, that is not the 3. 5 trillion that the house has already passed, but it is a much higher figure than the House Republicans wanted or what the Senate Republicans were sent still four. So we are a long ways apart, and usually the easiest thing to t what the people wain ington dont want to do, is spending money. But we have spt so much money many republicans are asking when we see results from this, isnt the economy Getting Better . Do we really need to do this right this mit te . Isis really just to help the state governments out of their obphysical ms . And they pointed to a california or an illinois and say those people got themselves into their own problems. House, but that is the view among some Senate Republicans, and that is where we stand. Jo another issue for the country, and that is being talked about on capitol hill is Police Reform. Na there are different atives, that are winding their way through, what is taking hold, and is there any proposal for reform that looks like it could move through on a bipartisan basis . No proposal thus far, i think the ly thing they are agreed upon