Are there terrorists hiding among Danbury’s Brazilian and Ecuadorian communities? That question was raised in a News-Times article last month. I can report that to the immigrant community, it was one of the most upsetting accusations we have heard in many years.
The article raised the question of whether terrorists are hiding among undocumented immigrants who flow across America’s borders.
It began by reporting a “growing consensus among experts that as millions of undocumented people flow into the United States, potential terrorists could be mixed in.”
“We Brazilians are a hard-working community. We’ve opened many businesses, paid our taxes, and volunteered in many organizations,” said one caller to my office, a woman who works at a Brazilian church in Danbury. “Some people who now read this story will simply forget all that.”
“Terrorism in unheard of in Brazil. These fears are just unfounded speculation,” said another, a young man who volunteers at a local non-for profit. “Brazilian government officials did not confirm these allegations. Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, the same way Brazil does not have terrorists.”
I also want to point out that the overwhelming majority of Danbury’s Brazilians did not come from Mexico. They came legally, through the doors of the JFK International Airport. Though they may overstay their visas, thus becoming “illegal,” that does not prevent the American government from knowing who they are and that they have not yet left the country.
[...]
This article — which I’m sure meant no harm — could result in potential discrimination against our hard-working immigrants in the Danbury region.
We have seen similar discrimination in other parts of the world: Jean Charles de Menezes was a young Brazilian electrician who was shot eight times by police in a London subway station because he “looked” like a terrorist. Afterward, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he was “desperately sorry” an innocent man was killed.
De Menezes’ death shocked Brazil. At his hometown in Minas Gerais state, more than 5,000 people paid tribute to the young man with banners such as “You can’t fight terrorism with terror.”
Maybe this is a lesson that we in Danbury also need to remember as we work to protect our country.
Shame on the News-Times for buying into this rhetoric. The article is insulting, demeaning, and a waste of column inches. As the only daily newspaper in the area, you would think they would stop picking up on the CTCIC's talking points and do some serious research on the topic before publishing such trash.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
