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

In a significant move aimed at addressing the ongoing housing crisis in Arizona, the state Senate has passed Senate Bill 1229, a piece of legislation that could transform the way municipalities regulate home designs and development standards. This bipartisan bill passed on March 5, 2025, with a narrow vote of 16-13, attracting support from both Democrats and Republicans who are united in their objective to enhance housing affordability in the Grand Canyon State.

Key Provisions of Senate Bill 1229

One of the most notable aspects of SB 1229 is its proposal to prevent municipalities from mandating shared amenities that require a Homeowners Association (HOA) for maintenance. This change is seen as a step toward safeguarding homeowners’ rights to decide the features, structure, and design of their properties without being subjected to burdensome regulations.

Moreover, the bill aims to prohibit cities from requiring certain elements such as screening, walls, or fencing on residential properties. It will also establish boundaries on how cities can regulate lot sizes and building setbacks. These provisions are designed to empower homeowners and help make housing more accessible.

Addressing the Housing Crisis

The initiative comes in light of a severe housing crisis that has plagued Arizona, making homeownership increasingly elusive for many residents. The language within the bill highlights the ongoing struggle for citizens in obtaining affordable housing: “It has become virtually impossible for many citizens of this state to achieve the American Dream of owning their own home.”

Supporters assert that the current highly-restrictive regulations contribute to this crisis and that SB 1229 presents a commonsense solution for families, teachers, first responders, and young professionals who have found themselves priced out of the housing market.

Bipartisan Support and Community Impact

Notably, the bill garnered a rare coalition of support from both parties, with nine Republicans and seven Democrats voting in favor. This broad backing could play a crucial role in advancing the bill to the House, where it may have a better chance of avoiding a veto from Governor Katie Hobbs.

State Senator Shawnna Bolick, a Republican representing District 2, expressed that this new legislation is a much-needed remedy to the housing challenges faced by many Arizona families. She emphasized that it aims to help working-class citizens secure homes that meet their needs and budget.

Echoing these sentiments, Democratic Senator Analise Ortiz shared her own struggles in the current housing market. “At 31, I cannot afford to own a home where I was born and raised and currently govern,” she stated. Ortiz’s personal experience underscores the urgency for legislative changes that prioritize affordable housing options for all residents.

Advertisement

Conclusion

As Arizona grapples with a pervasive housing crisis, Senate Bill 1229 represents a pivotal step towards unlocking new possibilities for homeownership and easing regulatory burdens that have long stymied development. By promoting flexibility in housing regulations, this legislation aims to pave the way for a brighter future for countless residents seeking to realize their dream of homeownership in Arizona.

The upcoming discussions in the House will be crucial in determining the fate of this bill. As passionate advocates for housing reform continue to support this initiative, many Arizona residents will be watching closely to see how it unfolds.

Related Links:

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2025/03/07/starter-homes-act-smaller-more-affordable-housing-in-arizona

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/arizona-senate-passes-bill-change-house-cities-regulate-housing-development-phoenix/75-de9a47e9-08c4-4878-be3d-59377341f8c8

https://www.kawc.org/news/2024-05-09/arizona-senate-passes-measure-on-affordable-housing

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/