It will begin at Kennedy Park, where the crowds of Hispanic men who gather before dawn to find work as day laborers helped prompt Mayor Mark D. Boughton to ask that the state police be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws.
[...]
Now, while members of Danbury's Common Council continue to draft a ''repetitive outdoor activity'' ordinance to restrict volleyball by cracking down on parking and noise, among other things, the mayor says deputizing the state police may not be necessary, that the police may have enough remedies without becoming immigration agents.
Lost in the hubbub is the political reality that having state police enforce immigration law in Connecticut is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. And even Boughton acknowledges that his plan would have little effect on the number of undocumented immigrants in town.
[...]
Blumenthal responded to Boughton's request by saying it would need the approval of Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle and the state legislature.
Blumenthal said there is no chance of that happening this year and he has "serious reservations" about the proposal. "Deputizing local or state police is not a long term or fundamental solution to the problem," he said.
Although Boughton wants state police to enforce immigration law, he is not interested in Danbury police having the same authority, for fear it would cripple their ability to investigate other crimes.
"The same is true, to an even greater extent, for the state police," Blumenthal said.
Well, I've been calling attention to these quotes from some time and it seems like other people are picking up on this and questioned the mayor.
Mayor Mark Boughton wants some police officers to receive training that would give them authority to enforce federal immigration law.
Sound familiar?
Boughton advocated the same issue in 2005, with one major difference. Boughton lobbied for state troopers to receive the federal training -- not Danbury officers.
At the time, Boughton said he did not want local police to receive the training, fearing it would impede their efforts to gather information from the immigrant community.
So what has changed?
The programs offered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the relationship between ICE and the city and the type of crimes happening in Danbury, according to Boughton.
AH...WHAT?
For ONE, this statement makes NO SENSE because the statement Boughton made BACK IN 2005 AS WELL AS IN 2006 made NO MENTION TO THE TYPES OF PROGRAM BEING OFFERED BY ICE. Boughton statements IN 05 AND 06 centered around him NOT WANTING LOCAL POLICE TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS regardless of the program. Look at his quote from Hartford Courant, April 26 2006.
Most local police departments say they have no interest in arresting illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes. Even in Danbury, when Mayor Mark Boughton last year tried unsuccessfully to have state police enforce immigration law, he said he didn't want his police doing it because it could discourage immigrants from cooperating in criminal investigations.
Nothing has changed from then to now. If DanburyPD participates in ICE ACCESS Local police would be allowed to enforce immigration laws, which in turn (according to Boughton 06 concern) would discourafge immigrants from cooperating in criminal investigations.
There is one reason Boughton is caught in a pickle...he has no plan. People over politics to him comprises of political rhetoric and using hot button topics (i.e., illegal immigration) for his own political gain.
Look folks, I found these three money quotes from Boughton doing a simple Lexis-Nexis search. Now, I have more statements from Boughton (remember I've been tivoing and following this since early 2005) and unlike most people, reporters and writers HAVE ACCESS to Lexis-Nexis (which documents every word someone says in the media whether it's written, radio, or television).
But wait , there is more!
When Boughton talks about the possible ICE partnership, he couches 287(g) as one of many options available under the ICE ACCESS umbrella.
However, a Dec. 21 one-page memo from Danbury Police Chief Al Baker only mentions 287(g) -- and does not mention the larger, ICE ACCESS program.
In the letter, the chief recommends police participate in 287(g) on a limited basis, which would simply formalize "a long-standing informal relationship that has existed between the Danbury Police Department and ICE."
Here's Baker's letter:
Did you notice the words ICE ACCESS anywhere? Hell, did you notice ANY DETAILS IN WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO from the Chief?
I'll add more details of Boughton's dishonesty later but lets just say that people who normally don't speak out are becoming extremely angry at this man.
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.
