Last Saturday, a rally was held in New Haven in support of legislation introduced at the Capitol that will give undocumented immigrants the chance to attend public universities at in-state tuition rates. Ten states already have similar laws to what's being proposed in Connecticut and a similar proposal was approved by the general assembly in 2007. Unfortunately, the bill was vetoed by then Governor Rell. With a new governor in office who has stated that he would sign the measure if it made it to his desk, immigrant right activists are hopeful that their proposal will finally become law.
As a strong advocate for immigrant rights, I can't tell you the number of times I've listened to stories of undocumented students who are being punished by the system simply because they were came to this country at a young age. Being denied access to higher education at the same rates as other in-state students because of your legal status makes no sense. For the children of undocumented immigrants, many of whom were brought to this country as infants, this country is the only home they know. To punish individuals from accessing higher education due to the actions of their parents is simply inhumane.
For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, I encourage you to view the following video and listen to the people who spoke in support of this bill. People like Mariano Cardoso, a 22 year old undocumented college student who faces a voluntary deportation although he's lived in the United States since he was 22 months old. Or María and Lorella Praeli, sisters from Peru who describe the struggles undocumented students and parents go through in order to get a college education.
After viewing the video, hopefully you'll have a better appreciation for the those in support of Connecticut's version of the DREAM Act.
Rotello said the new ordinance cost the city money, because people now pay $100 for the parade permit, but nothing for the police officers who put up barricades and stop cars from crossing the intersections as people walk by.
Boughton disagreed. He said for big events, where police are required, the organizers are charged a fee to offset the police costs. He said the old law was harder to enforce. With this one, everybody gets charged the $100.
The mayor claims that the ordinance does not cost the city money as organizers "are charged a fee to offset the police costs."
Would you be shocked to learn that a year after the ordinance went into effect, Boughton was singing a different tune...
Watch and learn.
BOUGHTON: …the bad news is we probably run up about 150,000 in police charges for all the parades and things that go on in the city…those numbers, they escalate quickly, so that's been a problem….there are other questions about the amount of people, and I think one of the things that we'll look is for recommendations from the chief [Al Baker] is "is this working, are you turning people down", I don't we ever turn someone down but the good news is that people have been really good about coming in and getting a permit so we've been able to organize…I'll talk to the committee chair and if there is a burning issue, I sure we can look into that...
So on one hand, one year after the ordinance went into effect, Boughton claimed that the new ordinance cost the city a whopping 150,000 dollars in police charges. On the other hand, in response to criticism, Boughton disagreed that the ordinance cost the city money and that costs were passed down to the organizers for big events (although the ability for the city to pick and choose which organizers were to be charge for police assistance was NEVER part of the ordinance).
You can't make this up folks!
It's getting to the point where I'm having trouble keeping track of Boughton's misleading statements. The questions remains...when will the media start holding this mayor accountable for the years of contradicting statements he's made on this issue as well as other matters.
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.