Forum Thread

Janet Napolitano Resigning to Become University Of California System President

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 8 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will be announcing her resignation today so she can become the President of the University of California school system. Ms. Napolitano has been at her current position since President Obama's first day on the job, back in January of 2009. She has helped transform the way our Federal Government prioritizes deportations of individuals that were in the country illegally by focusing more on people that were convicted of crimes and other offenses.

    While I didn't agree with everything the Secretary did, I do have a lot of respect for the incredibly tough job that she has for these past four plus years. What does Ms. Napolitano's departure mean for the department as we move forward with immigration reform?
  • Democrat
    Julian, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Wonderful! The University of California now has a fascist running their system. I wonder if Janet will introduce strip and feel up all the students before they enter their classrooms since such loony antics at our airports are her doing. I wonder if she will unleash her fascist thugs on students who demonstrate or protest?!
  • Independent
    Florida
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There will be NO "moving forward" on immigration "reform". It's quite DEAD.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Even though I have no idea who her replacement will be , I glad that she has left DHS, she was very heavy handed in dealing with the public at large, she was stuck on protocols and procedures even when proven those policies and procedures were deemed to be either inefficient or not really necessary and she was quite resistance to change, ruled DHS as a despot.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Even though I have no idea who her replacement will be , I glad that she has left DHS, she was very heavy handed in dealing with the public at large, she was stuck on protocols and procedures even when proven those policies and procedures were deemed to be either inefficient or not really necessary and she was quite resistance to change, ruled DHS as a despot.
    I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from with regard to her heavy handedness in her dealings with the public. Do you mean that her management style was conducted in such a way that made the public distrust or question the department as a whole? The frustrating thing about a federal bureaucracy in the 21st Century is that it will never react as quickly as we believe it should, especially when it comes to protecting the country.

    Now I will be the first person to admit that I think the DHS is bloated and has far more authority than it should have, but that doesn't mean that I think she was a poor manager. I think that the Congress needs to step up and take another look at all the powers they gave this fairly new agency. Our Congress has completely gone to sleep when it comes to these things and needs to step up their game if any of us expects anything to change. The President and his Secretaries have to enforce the law as it is written.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Her heavy handedness comes with the TSA's search procedures on who should be searched and who isn't, it took years for that particular entity to change policies regarding what, who and how things should be searched, the complete lack of insight on border issues regarding immigration, and there are more but why go on, she was an unelected plutocrat who became a despot, as for the President and his secretaries having to enforce laws as they written, you got to be kidding, this whole Administration, only selectively enforces those Laws that fit a particular agenda at that moment. One thing I will agree, and that a revisit of the powers that were granted to this Agency should be looked at with an eye for change and also the Agency's particular mission statement should be re-evaluated.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You will get no arguments from me about the idiocy of the TSA giving extra scrutiny to a grandpa in a wheel chair on the grounds of having to make everything completely random. That is a dumb rule and one, among a whole slew of things, that should be changed when it comes to the TSA. On the other hand, it is illegal to profile in this country and we would be violating people's civil and human rights if we racially or religiously profile at our airports or in any public sphere. The Fourth Amendment does still mean something and I firmly believe that we can not write laws aimed at protecting America by violating the rights of her own citizens.

    We can get in another discussion about this and countless other administrations selectively enforcing certain parts of the law while giving less credence to others. President Bush issued a historic 750 signing statements throughout his tenure in office. Some of these signing statements effectively nullified the very bill he was signing into law. Compare President Obama's meager 18 signing statements during his tenure and I question how anyone can say that our current President is a despot and anti-Constitutional.

    I will also remind you of the amount of executive orders that our previous President wrote. He issued 291 executive orders during his two terms in office, 173 of them being in the first term. Compare that to President Obama's 147 in his first term, which is also the least amount of Executive Orders in one term since President William McKinley.


    What I'm trying to show is that, contrary to what the right wing media wants us to believe, this President has used less authority in issuing executive orders than all of his modern predecessors.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I didn't say that Obama was a despot but that his DHS Director was a despot, I have no knowledge of these signing statements, are they what is called Executive Directives, I was stating that this Administration has selectivity enforced laws instead of all of the laws, most of those that have stood out as being an oversight or just plain ignored are those from the DOJ.