UPDATE: THANKS FOR SENDING A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE COUNCIL AND GIVING THEM A PIECE OF YOUR MIND!
I said it before and I'll say it again. THIS ISN'T 2005 and tonight showed once and for all that people are rejecting the immigration Kool-Aid. Unlike the xenophobes and the crap that spewed out of the deer-in-headlights' mouth, the people who spoke out against the proposal were for the most part, ordinary people from all walks of life who are very angry over the entire affair.
Notice how the Republicans didn't have much to say.
Notice how QUIET Pauline Basso was tonight (and trust me, she should KEEP AS QUIET AS POSSIBLE right now).
Notice how THE PEOPLE fought back and exposed the xenophobic misinformation.
I bring you everything that happened tonight, including comments from people who had no problem calling Mayor Boughton a liar and want some answers in regards to the last honest man's comment regarding the Danbury 11 last December.
UPDATE 2: Surprise, surprise, the News-Times gets it WRONG again. Thank goodness I have the video footage that shows a DRASTICALLY different story than what was reported in today's paper.
Oh, and it's funny how they didn't mention that there were about 20 supporters of the proposal and that most of the people who were AGAINST the proposal went to the chambers early to make sure they got a seat (the protest started a little after 7:00 PM when most people were scrambling for a seat. For the exception of cowboy Joel Urice (who like Pauline Basso, has a GREAT DEAL of explaining to do) the ONLY people who spoke in favor of the proposal were members of the deer-in-headlights' anti-immigrant group. Easily there were 70 or more people in the chambers who were against the proposal and not only were most from Danbury, most of the speakers were people who never spoke in front of the chambers before.
Where was the public that was so in favor of this proposal?
Where were the voices of the Common Council members who supported this measure?
Why did Joe Cavo sound like a coward when he was interviewed on WNPR yesterday?
Why were the Republicans SO QUIET throughout the meeting?
Why didn't the Republicans have much to say to the press after the meeting?
Why did the disgraceful MAJORITY LEADER Pauline Basso disappear like a bolt of lightning after the meeting?
Thank goodness other news outlets were on hand to report on the meeting. Their articles and the video footage will tell the REAL story. Later, I'll carefully explain why this entire proposal is a bunch of garbage and why the Republicans really have no intention of doing anything.
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.
