Earlier this month, I had the pleasure to interview mayoral candidates Dean Esposito and Roberto Alves and get their take on their vision for Danbury. While I was able to post my sit-down with Esposito, I was unable to post my discussion with Alves until now due to annoying computer problems.
I met with Alves at Danbury Democratic headquarters and listened as the Democratic candidate opened up about his experiences growing up as an undocumented immigrant in the city. Alves also detailed how his upbringing and desire to help others paved the way for his involvement in politics, becoming the Democratic Party's choice to lead the city.
Unfortunately, Alves' team can only allot me twenty-five minutes to interview their candidate, so I could not cover several important topics that I could discuss with Esposito. Thankfully, Alves stayed a while longer and provided his view on one of the top concerns among active residents: the city's lack of passive recreational options.
If I seemed rushed in the interview, it's because I was constantly looking at my watch and noticing that we were losing time rapidly and we didn't tackle a single topic yet. I sped up my questions so Alves could provide his viewpoint to the public on as many topics as possible before the interview had to end.
I'll give my take on Alves and Esposito's interviews next week.
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.
