Mr. Boughton has been mayor of Danbury since 1991. Danbury has been voted the safest city in Connecticut with the lowest percentage of unemployment. He is well qualified to be our next lieutenant-governor.
Since I know a thing or two about Boughton's integrity, I wouldn't be shocked if Mayor Mark told people across the state that he's been in charge of Danbury since '91. It's not like Boughton has a history of taking credit for things that implemented under Gene Eriquez's watch (magnet school, parking garage plan to revitalize Main Street, etc).
In looking at the Republican race, for example, Boughton is smart, knows his stuff, and would bring administrative prowess to the job. His record on immigration enforcement in Danbury and racial profiling, however, is so troubling that we could not in good conscience recommend him for this job. And he is inconsistent in his description of how illegal immigration even affects his city, on one hand saying that it is a drain on services, on the other bragging that Danbury has the lowest crime and unemployment in the state despite the presence of between 5,000 and 11,000 “illegals.”
...more proof that people aren't buying Boughton's lies regarding his rationale behind his stance on the immigration.
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.