Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube
Last month, a coalition of progressive organizations urged Governor Ned Lamont to issue an Executive Order "establishing clear, enforceable, and durable guardrails governing the use, deployment, and mission scope of the Connecticut National Guard while it is under state authority."
"Before our eyes, the Trump Administration is ordering military troops into American cities, building a national policing force, and in some cases employing secret police-style tactics," wrote the ACLU-led coalition, which included Indivisible Greenwich.
They argued that the true purpose of enforcing federal immigration law is to "sow fear" and "silence opposition" -- forget about protecting American citizens from criminals who shouldn't even be in the country.
Yesterday, the "Stand Up CT" coalition held a "campaign webinar" about the intention to prevent Connecticut's Guard from being deployed to support federal immigration efforts.
Coincidentally, six of the webinar's sponsors, including Connecticut For All, Connecticut Students for a Dream, Husky 4 Immigrants, Make the Road CT, SEUI 1199, and SEUI 32BJ, also co-sponsored Friday's "abolish ICE" protests to be in "solidarity" with Minnesota after the unfortunate death of Renee Nicole Good.
The Saturday death of Alex Pretti added to the urgency of the coalition's call to action.
Unfortunately, Pretti was put in harm's way thanks in part to the network of far-left activists in which he got caught up—a network that had been actively organizing and training for mass mobilization and mayhem against the U.S. government using Signal.
Plus it wasn't exactly wise for a guy who previously broke his rib while trying to interfere with ICE to bring a gun known for misfiring to a political event the following week in a state that argued there's no 2A right to carry guns at "political rallies and protests."
But that information wasn't part of the webinar.
"Make no mistake, ICE has its sights on Connecticut," said ACLU CT. "But there's a lot we can do before they get here to make sure the state is ready when the invasion begins."
The invasion?
We're not talking about millions of people running across an open border, but federal law enforcement officers trying to keep our streets safe.
Tabitha Sookdeo from CT Students for a Dream set the tone for the webinar by "naming the moment we are living in" ... a political, legal and moral crisis ... "in a country where people are being killed by federal officers" ... "where cities and states are being targeted by the federal government" and "military forces are being positioned as a response to human movement, protest, and survival."
Sookdeo claimed that a line had been crossed, and said, "once the government accepts the loss of human life as an acceptable cost of enforcement, something fundamental has already been broken."
Was she talking about the 56 people who died in ICE custody under Obama?
ACLU's Gus Marks-Hamilton explained what the national guard is, from a legal perspective, and that the main concern was the potential "federalization" of Connecticut's Guard.
National guard deployments, particularly in support of federal immigration law, were referred to as "unnecessary, dangerous, and unconstitutional without a governor's consent."
Without clear limits, ACLU is concerned that the state's guard could be ordered to help enforce immigration laws inside the state or assist other states' immigration enforcement efforts, and that communities—especially immigrants and Black and brown residents—could face militarized policing.
ACLU argued for Lamont to immediately bar the use of Connecticut Guard resources for civil immigration enforcement, block cooperation with federal or out-of-state troops deployed into Connecticut "if the governor objects" and prevent the Connecticut Guard from being deployed to other states for immigration-related missions.
And it wants the General Assembly to pass legislation to make the orders more durable.
Speaking of potential legislation...
State Senator Matt Lesser said he wanted to pass a state civil rights act "in the wake of the killings now of two American citizens and an attitude from the federal government that seems designed not just to go after immigrants, but to antagonize and provoke the general population of the city" of Minneapolis so they all feel like they're "under siege."
Lesser described what's happening in Minnesota as a "political attack" against the people.
He made no mention of the billions of dollars in fraud uncovered in Minnesota or the crimes committed by illegals.
"Well, if your federal rights are, your constitutional rights are deprived by a federal agent, you would have the ability under a state civil rights act to sue that agent, or the federal government," said Lesser. "We can do that in Connecticut, and I think we should.
Why do Connecticut democrats spend so much time "doing the work" of making it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to do their job?
Don't they remember that even their boy Obama said there are "certain obligations" to enforce the immigration laws that are already in place "even if we think...the results may be tragic"?
Or is the rate of fraud in Connecticut as bad or even worse than it is in Minnesota?
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
