Mayor Mark Boughton said he will keep illegal immigration at the top of his agenda as he starts his third term in City Hall.
In fact, the Republican said his controversial stance on the issue helped win him re-election by a wide margin Tuesday. "People are very much concerned about illegal immigration in Danbury. That is evident. I think it was one of the top two or three issues in the election," Boughton said. "The public is genuinely frustrated."
[…]
Going forward, Boughton said he won't back off the issue of illegal immigration.
If illegal immigration is one of the top reasons Boughton was elected in 2005 (as he claims), why hasn't be made this a centerpiece of his campaign for Lt. Gov. Heck, if he's so proud of his anti-immigration record, then why is no mention of it on his poorly designed Boughton for Lt. Gov website:
Makes you wonder what Boughton is so afraid of…like people across the state finding out that when it comes to the issue of immigration, good ol' Mayor Mark has a LONG history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, punish people/organizations that oppose him, and controls his message by establishing a climate of fear within the immigrant community.
With the August Lt. Gov primary around the corner, it's important for people across the state to learn the REAL history behind the last honest man in Danbury...a history that Boughton is doing his best to keep off the radar.
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.
