Although not confirmed, word has it that the Department of Homeland Security accepted Danbury into the ICE (287g) program and that the city will be proceeding with execution of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced an overhaul of that program, placing greater restriction on police. Most notably, 287(g) now explicitly places priority on "aliens who pose a criminal threat," says Matt Chandler, Assistant Press Secretary for DHS's Office of Public Affairs.
This is meant to discourage police from charging illegal immigrants with small crimes and dragging them through the ICE system, a process that could end in deportation.
With the last honest man in Danbury bragging about the city being the safest area in the state, given the current economic climate, it will be interesting to see how Boughton will factor in the implementation of this needless (and racially motivated) policy.
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.
