News Corp. head honcho Rupert Murdoch testified on Capitol Hill today about the need for immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants. Sounds good, kangaroo man! Why not explain this to your Fox News?
It didn't take long for one member of the committee to point out that Murdoch's immigration ideas, which are essentially in line with the current Democratic mainstream and much of the Republican party circa 2007, are always being deep-sixed largely because of the huffy, nativist rhetoric on Fox News.
"We do not take any consistent anti-immigrant line," Murdoch said in rejecting charges of hypocrisy coming from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). "We are not anti-immigrant on Fox News."
Waters lit up a House Judiciary Committee hearing on immigrants and the economy as she put Murdoch on the spot. In his testimony, Murdoch had lauded the contributions of immigrants to the nation, but Waters said "I don't see that promoted on Fox News - talking about anchor babies and all that."
Waters said she welcomed Murdoch's views but "I'm trying to point out the contradiction."
If she thinks FOXNews is bad, maybe I should send Congressman Waters a copy of some of the anti-immigrant crap that's on Comcast 23...
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.
