Preston teams up with Stone Barns
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, F BTR EBRUARY 1-7, 2019 71
Action
Association
Stone Barns Center will
be working closely with Preston
English teacher, Michelle
Esposito as she begins to pilot
the SBC’s new curriculum
on food-related issues (e.g.,
healthy eating habits, food insecurity,
food justice, etc.).
Esposito began introducing
some of the topics to her
AP English Language class
last year. Over the summer
Unilever (which is a sponsor
of SBC’s educational efforts)
sent a media company to Preston
to interview her and some
of her students about the initiative,
what the students
learned about food-related is-
sues, and what their thoughts
were about the curriculum.
They were unanimous,
stating they found the lessons
both interesting and challenging.
Senior Daniela Hernandez
stated that she has was
surprised to learn of the food
injustice and inequality occurring
in her own neighborhood
and is excited to do more
to make a change in her community.
Stone Barns, through a
grant they have received,
will be providing Preston and
their other partner schools
with a kitchen-classroom setup
(pots, pans, utensils, hotplates,
etc.) in order to continue
the hands-on learning
approach. Through this Stone
Barns curriculum, Preston
can exercise compassion from
a unique lens.
Esposito shared that by
asking students to focus on the
often overlooked aspects of our
food: where it grows, who toils
to grow it, who gets to consume
it, and how it impacts our present
and future environment,
our young women will notice
these crucial details, and will
grow more mindful and empathetic
and, of course, empower
themselves to become agents
of change. (L-r) Student Daniela Hernandez and English teacher Michelle Esposito.
Transportation services for older adults
Do you need help getting
to and from your medical appointments?
Transportation services
are available to seniors Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., in community districts
9, 10, 11 and 12.
The program provides
door-to-door service for all
medical appointments.
Their drivers are courteous
and professional; and
their vehicles are clean and
handicap accessible, including
wheelchair lifts.
For further information,
contact Mildred Cardona, program
director of the R.A.I.N.
Transportation Program, at
(718) 882-8513.
BY FRANK V. VERNUCCIO, JR.
The distinguished retired
jurist and former Bronx resident,
John H. Wilson, studied
the ‘sanctuary city’ issue, and
prepared this analysis for this
column:
It is hard to hear about this
incident without being incredulous.
On the day after Christmas,
California police offi cer
Ronil Singh was gunned down
during a DUI traffi c stop by
illegal immigrant Gustavo
Arriaga. Arriaga, from Mexico,
had gang affi liations, two
prior DUI arrests, and had entered
the country illegally by
crossing the border in Arizona.
Offi cer Singh, himself a legal
immigrant, left behind a
wife and young child.
This event was already national
news when it was mentioned
by President Donald
Trump in his televised speech
to the nation: “America’s heart
broke the day after Christmas
when a young police offi cer in
California was savagely murdered
in cold blood by an illegal
alien, just came across the
border. The life of an American
hero was stolen by someone
who had no right to be in
our country. Day after day,
precious lives are cut short by
those who have violated our
borders.”
Unfortunately, there is
nothing new about “someone
who has no right to be in
our country” killing someone
who does. From Kate Steinle
(whose murderer was only
found guilty of illegally possessing
a fi rearm) to Pierce
Corcoran, who was killed in
Knoxville December 29 by
an illegal immigrant driving
without a license or insurance,
there is no escaping the
fact that illegal immigrants
are killing people at an alarming
rate.
This leads to two question
which must be asked – are
the policies of sanctuary cities
directly responsible for
the deaths of these innocent
people, and if they are, can the
politicians who support sanctuary
policies be prosecuted?
The Acting Director of ICE
certainly believes this to be
the case. In remarks made
after the murder of police offi
cer Singh, Thomas Homan
stated that “politicians should
be held ‘personally accountable’
for crimes committed
by people living in the U.S.
illegally…’We’ve got to start
charging some of these politicians
with crimes.’”
But exactly what crime
could these politicians be
charged with? One seemingly
obvious choice would be Obstruction
of Justice.
18 USC Chapter 73 defi nes
‘Obstruction of Justice’ in a
variety of manners. Sec 1502
makes it crime to resist an ‘extradition
agent,’ however the
agents described transport
prisoners from one prison to
another within the United
States. Section 1505 criminalizes
the “obstruction of proceedings
before departments,
agencies, and committees,”
but by its language, “(w)hoever
corruptly, or by threats
or force, or by any threatening
letter or communication infl uences,
obstructs, or impedes
or endeavors to infl uence, obstruct,
or impede the due and
proper administration of the
law under which any pending
proceeding is being had before
any department or agency
of the United States,” an argument
can be made that this
statute would not apply. An
immigration detainer is not
necessarily a “pending proceeding,”
and to the knowledge
of this author, none of
the leaders of any sanctuary
city have threatened the use of
force, or sent any letters that
could be construed as threatening
to ICE.
Section 1510, which makes
it a crime to obstruct a criminal
investigation would not
apply, since immigration proceedings
are civil and not
criminal in nature, and while
Section 1511, “Obstruction of
State and local law enforcement,”
may sound promising,
that statute only applies to actions
intended to facilitate an
illegal gambling operation.”
Finally, 18 USC 1509, ‘obstruction
of court orders’ will
not apply, since an Immigration
court is not a ‘court of the
United States’ (18 USC 1515(a)
defi nes “offi cial proceedings”
as occurring before “a judge
or court of the United States,
a United States magistrate
judge, a bankruptcy judge, a
judge of the United States Tax
Court, a special trial judge of
the Tax Court, a judge of the
United States Court of Federal
Claims, or a Federal grand
jury,” none of which include
a judge of the Immigration
Court).
Reasonable minds may differ
on the interpretation of
these statutes. Dan Cadman
of the Center for Immigration
Studies argues for the application
of 18 USC 1505, discussed
above. However, this author
believes Mr. Cadman presents
a far stronger argument for
the use of 8 USC 1324.
Under subsection (a)(1)(A)
(iii) of that statute, it is a crime
to “knowing(ly) or in reckless
disregard of the fact that an
alien has come to, entered, or
remains in the United States
in violation of law, conceals,
harbors, or shields from detection,
or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection,
such alien in any place,
including any building or any
means of transportation.”
This author believes a
strong argument can also
be made for the applicability
of subsection (a)(1)(A)
(iv), which makes it a crime
to “encourage(s) or induce(s)
an alien to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States,
knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that such coming
to, entry, or residence is or
will be in violation of law.”
Under subdivision (b)(ii),
the penalty for a violation of
“subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii),
(iv), or (v)(II),” is a fi ne “under
title 18, imprison(ment)
not more than fi ve years, or
both.”
In his article on this issue,
Mr. Cadman advocates for the
prosecution of Oakland, California
mayor Libby Schaaf,
who famously warned illegal
immigrants residing in her
city of an impending raid
by ICE agents. Were Mayor
Schaaf to be prosecuted, could
Mayor Bill DeBlasio of New
York City, or Mayor London
Breed of San Francisco be far
behind?
There is little question that
the establishment of a sanctuary
for illegal immigrants
conceals, harbors or shields
from detection these persons,
as well as ‘encourages and induces’
these same persons to
‘come to, enter, or reside in the
United States.’ But as more
persons who are in our country
illegally perpetrate more
violent crimes, killing citizens
and police offi cers alike, the
effect of protecting these persons
from detection and apprehension
by ICE becomes more
pronounced and increasingly
detrimental to public safety.
As these continuous and
heartbreaking murders garner
increasing attention, it becomes
harder and harder for
sanctuary city politicians to
deny the effect of their actions.
All that is necessary at this
stage is for the US Attorney of
a sanctuary city to show some
courage, and enforce the law.