The case of Tereza Perreira, who was recently arrested by ICE agents, highlights how complicated the immigration issue has become.
She has lived in Danbury for years and has children who are American citizens. She supports herself and owns a home. She is an illegal immigrant but she has not been hiding; she has spent years trying to obtain a legal status.
After a few weeks of detention, Perreira was released by ICE. So why was she arrested?
Immigration laws should be enforced in Danbury as well as on the nation's borders. But recent ICE raids in Danbury seem to be about something else -- about putting on a show.
Most of the people who have been arrested have been released. In September, for example, ICE agents dressed like contractors to lure day workers in Kennedy Park into their vans. The workers were arrested and whisked away. But within weeks, most of them were released and returned to Danbury. So why were they arrested?
ICE has been given a tough assignment by Congress and President Bush, and insufficient resources to do the job. No matter what ICE does, it will get criticism from one side or the other.
ICE officials would help themselves if they concentrated less on showmanship and more on law enforcement.
In addition, ICE's practice of arresting people and refusing to tell their families what has happened to them is wrong and counterproductive. ICE should want to be seen as a law enforcement agency, not the secret police.
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.
