THIS PROPOSAL NEEDS TO SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC. Currently, Hat City Blog is the only form of media covering these meetings via videotape (the archive of the meetings will be available soon). We already have a channel on Comcast (Channel 24) that can be used for broadcasting of the meetings and it will not take much to make this happen.
Oh, I'm just shaking my head in disbelief. The editor of the News-Times met with the xenophobes who call themselves the United States Citizens for Immigration Law Enforcement.
My question is simple: why?
Why pander to the smallest percentage of the total population in Danbury. Readers of this blog are well aware of how this group has used the media to their own gain. Look at Paul Streitz; he couldn't get 100 people FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY to donate to his campaign when he ran for senate yet, the hate-mongers get a meeting with the editor of the News-Times like they're relevant in Danbury?
Nonsense.
Yes, the News-Times is not known for their great local reporting but catering to these morons is just nuts. In a later post, I'm going to write an open letter to Eric Conrad and offer my views on how the News-Times can do a better job in reporting the news (and it has nothing to do with a knee-jerk reactionary topic like immigration).
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.
