March 19, 2025, marked a significant day for the residents of Tanner Terrace in Glendale, Arizona, as they came together to celebrate National Nutrition Month. The event, held from 2 PM to 3:30 PM, aimed to emphasize the importance of healthy eating among seniors and featured a special focus on enhancing their nutritional knowledge.

The gathering was organized by Diana Gregory Outreach Services, a non-profit dedicated to enriching lives through healthy eating. Over the years, this organization has worked tirelessly to provide access to fresh produce and nutritional education for low-income seniors, veterans, and vulnerable individuals in the community.

A Flavorful Presentation

The afternoon began with a lively presentation titled Food, Fun, and Fitness, led by certified nutritionist Debbie Polisky. The interactive session engaged residents in discussions about the benefits of balanced nutrition and simple ways to incorporate healthy foods into their diets. Attendees were eager to learn and ask questions, creating a vibrant atmosphere filled with enthusiasm for healthier living.

As a delightful conclusion to the presentation, each of the 100 seniors in attendance received a pre-packed bag of fresh produce from Fry’s Food Stores, complete with recipes and nutritional information. Watching the smiles on the seniors’ faces as they received these gifts was a heartwarming reminder of the impact of community support.

Generous Support from Fry’s Food Stores

At the outset of the event, Diana Gregory was presented with a generous check from Fry’s Food Stores. This contribution is vital for supporting Diana Gregory Outreach Services and its initiatives. Gregory proudly stated, “We have been serving the town for 16 years, and last year alone, we served over 30,000 seniors and veterans. This kind of support is critical to continue our mission.”

Pam Giannonatti, the Corporate Affairs Manager for Fry’s, emphasized their commitment to fighting food insecurity. With initiatives like “Zero Hunger, Zero Waste,” Fry’s aims to provide fresh food not only in their stores but also to those in need within the community. “Last year alone, we were able to provide over 16 million meals to hungry Arizonans,” Girardi remarked, highlighting the company’s dedication to wholesome nutrition and community welfare.

The Mission of Diana Gregory Outreach Services

Diana Gregory Outreach Services has a clear and impactful mission: to enrich lives through healthy eating. By addressing health disparities and championing holistic nutrition and fitness, the organization ensures that vulnerable populations have access to the resources they need to thrive. Their commitment is straightforward but profound: “We have a responsibility to ensure no veteran, senior, and their families in our community go to bed hungry.”

The culmination of the event was not just about handing out fresh produce; it symbolized a community rallying together to support its most vulnerable members. Flyers were distributed to the residents of Tanner Terrace, spreading awareness about future initiatives and encouraging participation in further programs designed to enhance healthy living.

Advertisement

A Community Commitment

As I observed this event, it became clear that initiatives like these serve a dual purpose: they enrich the lives of seniors by providing them with crucial resources and foster a sense of community among participants. For many seniors, events like these also offer an opportunity to socialize and engage with their neighbors, enhancing their overall well-being.

As National Nutrition Month concludes, the event at Tanner Terrace stands as a shining example of how community partnerships—between organizations, businesses, and residents—can work in harmony to create a healthier future for all. By continuing to support initiatives that prioritize nutrition, we can make a lasting impact on our community’s health and wellness.

In the spirit of National Nutrition Month, let us carry forward the lessons learned and the connections made, ensuring that every member of our community has access to the nourishment they need to lead fulfilling lives.

Related link:

https://dianagregory.com

The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.

https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge

Advertisement

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — In the aftermath of a recent City Council vote, multiple diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are facing significant changes, pauses, or outright terminations in Scottsdale. This decision has sparked spirited discussions among residents and community leaders regarding the future of these programs and their impact on the community.

Last week, city employees received an internal memo detailing the specific DEI initiatives that would be eliminated. This decision follows a controversial 5 to 2 vote by the City Council in February, which adopted an ordinance to discontinue city funding for DEI programs. The ordinance emphasized that city employees should be hired, evaluated, and promoted based on merit and outlined the reassignment of at least two DEI-related positions.

As part of this shift, Scottsdale has removed its DEI website and all associated social media accounts, along with any printed materials displayed at city facilities. Among the program cuts are the City’s Juneteenth celebration, the employee-driven Diversity Advisory Committee, and a special program at the public library designed for children that incorporated music and fingerplays promoting DEI values.

Additionally, the City will no longer sponsor significant events and organizations, including the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner and the Local Government Hispanic Network. However, the Scottsdale Human Relations Commission, the Mayor’s Ability Awards, and the enforcement of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinances will remain intact, according to a spokesperson for the City.

City officials anticipate that these cuts will free up approximately $115,000 in the Scottsdale budget. In a statement responding to the changes, Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky emphasized the commitment to ensure that every individual in Scottsdale has equal opportunities for success. “Although the formal diversity office has ended, we remain committed to ensuring every individual in Scottsdale has equal opportunity to thrive,” she stated. Borowsky added, “We are a welcoming city, and I am confident that my fellow residents, business leaders, our nonprofit partners, and our anchor institutions will continue to work alongside the city in achieving our collective goal – ensuring that no community or resident in Scottsdale is underserved or overlooked.”

Despite the city’s assurances, the decision has met with backlash from residents who argue that these programs play a crucial role in building community and fostering diversity. Madison Stroh, a local resident, expressed concern about the cuts, stating, “If that money being saved is put to other good uses, then I think that would be beneficial. But if they’re just trying to cut it just to cut it, then I don’t know how I feel about it.”

As Scottsdale moves forward with this significant change in its approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the community will undoubtedly continue to engage in discussions about the importance of these initiatives and their impact on the city’s fabric. The cuts reflect a critical juncture for Scottsdale as it navigates the complexities of balancing budgetary constraints with the needs of its diverse population. Residents will be watching closely as the city aims to redefine its commitments moving forward.

Related link:

Advertisement

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/scottsdale-city-council-member-says-vote-remove-dei-program-not-effective

Gabriel J. Chin, University of California, Davis

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the government will deport lawful permanent residents who support Hamas and came to the U.S. as students with an intent “to rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities,” referencing the Palestinian rights protests at universities in 2024.

“And if you end up having a green card – not citizenship, but a green card – as a result of that visa while you’re here and those activities, we’re going to kick you out. It’s as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio said on March 12, 2025.

That policy has now ensnared Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia University and a leader in the Palestinian rights protest movement at the school. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born in Syria, faces deportation after he was arrested on March 8, 2025, in New York City. The that the secretary of state had determined Khalil’s presence or activities in the country posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Mahmoud Khalil,

Khalil entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2022. In 2024, he received a green card and became a lawful permanent resident – meaning he has the legal right to work and stay in the U.S. There are an estimated 12.8 million lawful permanent residents in the country.

Khalil’s lawyers say that his arrest and pending deportation are unconstitutional.

In many respects, the rights of lawful permanent residents and citizens are similar. Yet citizens and lawful permanent residents do not enjoy equal status under the law.

The Supreme Court and other courts recognize that lawful permanent residents have First Amendment rights to free speech.

Advertisement

Yet the Supreme Court upheld deporting lawful permanent residents in the 1950s based on their political activity, in particular membership in the Communist Party.

So, while lawful permanent residents may not be criminally prosecuted for their political speech or activity, what they say or write may well affect their ability to remain in the U.S., if the government determines that they are a security risk.

I’m a scholar of immigration law. Here are three major differences between the rights of citizens and lawful permanent residents.

1. Limited political rights

Lawful permanent residents are people born in other countries who can legally work and live in the U.S. for as long as they like. They may enlist in the U.S. armed forces, apply to become U.S. citizens, and are legally protected against discrimination by private employers.

States also generally cannot discriminate against lawful permanent residents – though states may require certain groups of people, such as teachers or police, to have U.S. citizenship.

Between 1820 and 1920, noncitizens routinely participated in different aspects of government, including voting, holding office and jury service in many states and territories.

These days, states and the federal government generally allow only citizens to serve on juries, hold political positions and vote. With a few exceptions, such as voting in some local elections, permanent residents are not able to do any of these things.

2. Limited public benefits

The distinction between noncitizens and citizens extends to other areas of life, such as public benefits.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court has frequently stated, “In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”

In practice, this means that the federal government – and to a much lesser extent, states – do not offer public benefits, such as Medicaid and other kinds of government support, to lawful permanent residents and other noncitizens on the same basis as citizens.

For example, lawful permanent residents must generally wait five years before becoming eligible for certain programs intended to support low-income people, such as Supplemental Security Income and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

3. Reversal of immigration status

Finally, unlike citizens, lawful permanent residents can lose their legal immigration status.

Congress has enacted many grounds for deporting a noncitizen, or stopping them from entering the country.

Some courts have found that the U.S. government can deport a lawful permanent resident because of national security or terrorism concerns, even if the person has not committed a crime.

The Trump administration argues that they can deport lawful permanent residents like Khalil under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that a lawful permanent resident can be deported if the secretary of state has reasonable ground to believe that this person “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Advertisement

The Trump administration had initiated deportation proceedings against Khalil on this ground.

U.S. law also provides that any non-citizen can be deported if the secretary of state and the attorney general jointly determine that the person is associated with terrorism, or poses a threat to the U.S. In addition, the law says an immigrant can be deported if they “endorse or espouse terrorist activity or persuades others” to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.

Still, lawful permanent residents are entitled to certain basic rights, such as retaining a lawyer to represent them in administrative hearings and court before they are deported.

By contrast, the U.S. government cannot deport a U.S. citizen for any reason. However, sometimes U.S. citizens are deported by mistake.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has found that while it is constitutional to execute a military member for desertion in wartime, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to deprive them of citizenship.

Legal grounds for deporting noncitizens

There have been few recent court cases testing the scope of deporting lawful permanent residents on national security grounds based on pure speech.

In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that if a person is deportable, they are deportable – even if there is some other reason that motivated the government’s deportation proceedings, such as a suspicion that the non-citizen is involved with crime or terrorism.

The Supreme Court also then held that the government could deport non-citizens for technical visa violations, even if the case was based on the government’s belief that the non-citizens were associated with a terrorist group.

Advertisement

There is also some precedent arguing that deportation based on “adverse foreign policy consequences” is too broad and nonspecific to be constitutional.

Indeed, Marianne Trump Barry, the sister of the president, held this opinion when she was a federal judge in the mid-1990s. But Samuel Alito, then an appeals court judge, overturned Barry’s ruling on procedural grounds in 1996.

For its part, the Supreme Court has occasionally held that very broad and indeterminate deportation grounds are “void for vagueness,” meaning so sweeping and imprecise that they are unconstitutional.

Khalil’s lawyers appeared with U.S. government lawyers before a federal judge in New York on March 12. Their goal: to get Khalil moved from internment in Louisiana back to internment in New York. But that may well be just the beginning of a long haul for the Palestinian student. Courts have proved reluctant to second-guess security grounds rationales in immigration cases. For these reasons, cases like Khalil’s may go on for years.

Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Criminal Law, Immigration, and Race and Law, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement