.

Finizio's Order Will Bring More Deadly Crime

New Haven is our sister sanctuary city for illegal aliens thanks to the mayor's orders to stop police from enforcing federal law. It is a deadly direction for New London.

The first peaceful protest to Mayor Finizio’s Executive Order to turn New London into a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants meets Wed, Jan 18th at 7:45 AM at the Garde Theater entrance on State St to petition the mayor at Finizio’s State of New London address hosted by the Chamber of Commerce.  Please drop by to sign a petition and tell Finizio to rescind this executive order.

Although he never publicly announced his plan to turn New London into a Sanctuary City to harbor illegals, Finizio said it was a political promise he had to keep. Who did he make this promise to and why would Daryl make such a radical and unpopular executive order? For many voters this executive order is a shocking betrayal.  A charter change that was meant to improve our city has been usurped by a New London outsider who seems hell bent on disenfranchising the majority of residents who were surprised that there was no public discussion prior to the mayor’s announcement.

Illegal immigrants come in many nationalities.  They are here illegally because they have ignored the Federal laws that protect our country from criminal activity and health, welfare and security threats. What right does Mayor Finizio have to dictate that our police cannot utilize Federal law to protect our city from these threats?

If these orders have the same effect they did in New Haven, we can expect a significant increase in bloodshed as violent crime increases.  Moreover, New Haven’s poor blacks and veterans have been hit hardest by losing jobs to illegals. Unemployment and poverty is hitting record numbers.  The cost of municipal services needed to cover the many social issues can also be expected to increase.  Resources that should go to help our elderly, education system and badly deteriorating infrastructure, will be squandered to address the crises Finizio created.  All of us will suffer.

Look at New Haven, Connecticut’s other sanctuary city: For three years the unemployment rate has risen at twice the national rate – with poor and lower middle-class blacks affected the most. New Haven’s murder, assault and robbery rates doubled and the city is now the 4th most dangerous in the US, according to FBI stats, it has replaced Hartford as Connecticut’s murder capital, for the first time this year.

New London is on the same Interstate-95 corridor with similar transportation options and an abundance of non-owner occupied rental housing, just like New Haven.  We already have enough violent criminals and gang activity.  We already have high taxes and too little money to address the needs of our municipality.  Imagine all of our most serious issues magnified and doubled or tripled! That is what will happen unless Finizio is stopped, now. Please help save New London from becoming another New Haven. Stop Finizio now by signing our petition Wednesday morning, join our peaceful protest and let your voice be heard.

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2011/09/19/news/new_haven/doc4e77c955eb1db300971589.txt

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/New-Haven-4th-Most-Dangerous-City-Report-122619474.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2820327/posts

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 25, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Jason: What lie have I told. The charter does not give Mayor Finizio the right to pass Illegitimate Executive Orders. T or F Ordinances must go before City Council for a vote. T or F The electorate has a right to petition ordinances. T or F Executive orders do not go before city council. T or F Executive orders do not give the electorate an opportunity to petition. T or F Before you accuse me of lying check your facts. Occupy is about fairness. T or F I believe the occupy monicker fits beautifully in Finizio's case. He has taken away our rights and freedoms for drug traffickers and gangs who are breaking the law in sanctuary cities across the US. I fear not. I hate not and I am anything but greedy. You know nothing about me. Instead of being just another Finizio bully, try keeping your insults to yourself.
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 25, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Carol: Please read the attached pdf study pertaining to illegal immigration and local law enforcement. Please look into New Haven's statistics and other sanctuary cities. I have no problem with law enforcement profiling criminals. A law enforcement representative asking for a driver’s license or papers is not racial profiling. (In March, 2005, in Muelher v. Mena the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that inquiring into immigration status during police contacts was as fundamental a question as asking name, address and date of birth.) Sanctuary Cities are in violation of Federal law (Sect. 642, of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996) That law provides that “States and localities may not adopt policies, formally or informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with DHS regarding the immigration status of individuals.” If a person is here legally they have nothing to worry about. If a Caucasian brunette woman in her 50's was seen snatching babies, I would expect the police to stop all brunette ladies in their 50's including me. Is that gender profiling? If the police believe that a specific person may know about or be involved in a crime, with proof or not, they should be asking questions. That is their job. They should also immediately report illegal aliens to authorities. Immigration officials share information with local law enforcement and stop crime. If you are being harassed by law enforcement you can press charges.
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 25, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Jason: Could you please tell all those reading this the following answers: 1. What special interest do I represent, receive money from or power from? 2. What am I afraid of? 3. Who do I hate and what evidence do you have that I hate anyone? 4. What makes me greedy? Please stop cyber bullying and degrading others who have a different opinion than yours. You do not know anything about me.
Carol D. Fox January 25, 2012 at 10:38 PM
I agree with you that if the police are suspicious about a specific person and believe that they may have been involved in a crime, they have every right to bring him in for questioning. At that time, they can learn if he has a green card or not and if he does not, he should then be detained and reported to Immigration and if he is guilty of a crime, deported. But my point is that not all illegals are involved with crime. You cannot stop people indiscriminately just because they have dark hair. You cannot assume that just because New London may have a fair amount of immigrants, either legal or illegal, that we are a sanctuary city. The .pdf study was not attached to your last post. Please repost.
Carol D. Fox January 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM
To digress for a moment, the United States has always been known as a “Melting Pot” and the “Land of Opportunity” and its message still holds tremendous power – the promise that all immigrants can be transformed into Americans, forged in a crucible of democracy, freedom and civic responsibility. One set of my grandparents came from Austria and the other set from Spain and Turkey. Between 1890 and 1920, 18 million people came to America to become citizens. The immigrants today now come from third world countries. Fear of strangers is nothing new in American history. The difference between now and then is that way back then they wanted to become Americans. Today, there is more emphasis on preserving one's ethnic identity and of finding ways to defend one's cultural roots. You have to agree that diversity is good and exposure to different cultures and ideas is good. The immigration law of 1965 triggered this transformation when Congress made family reunification the primary criteria for admittance. This law allowed immigrants already in the United States to bring over their relatives, who in turn could bring over more relatives. As a result, the United States has been absorbing as many as 1 million newcomers a year, to the point that now almost 1 in every 10 residents is foreign born. So, with this said, I don’t think you can say New London is a “sanctuary city” without admitting that America is a sanctuary country.
James Dixon January 26, 2012 at 01:19 AM
I'm proud that New London Mayor Finizio's first executive orders addressed exactly the type of racial discrimination that prompted the investigation of East Haven Police Department. http://newlondon.patch.com/articles/patch-s-poll-did-you-hear-what-the-east-haven-mayor-said#_=_
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 26, 2012 at 01:50 AM
Carol, why not open our land to all people of all nationalities and do away with our borders? That is what you are saying, right? I mean why have borders at all? Why have laws? My mom came here legally. I welcome all into our melting pot, legally. My closest friends are immigrants from France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Africa. Some have chosen to work, live and raise their families here. One of my closet friends became an American citizen last year. There is no reason to come here illegally. We have borders to protect us from disease, terrorism, drug trafficking and harmful species and plants. Borders are essential to law and law is essential to safe immigration. Have you seen the violence over the border in Mexico? Drug lords have done away with journalists and police officers. James, you just keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Regardless Finizio had no right to make that decision on his own. His executive orders are illegitimate and unethical.
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 26, 2012 at 01:55 AM
James: These are your words... What we need is more control over government. If democracy works, if our officials represent us, if our constitution protects rights, we shouldn't fear government, but it's difficult to reduce corporate influence these days...James your defending mayor Finizio is contrary to everything you say here. He has trampled on our rights and you want to lessen government controls by allowing illegals to come an go at will. Which is it? Can't figure out the hypocracy.
James Dixon January 26, 2012 at 02:29 AM
There is no hypocrisy here. He is doing exactly what I voted for him to do. He has followed procedures and done what he is not only legally allowed to do, but required to do to protect the citizen's of this city. There is zero corporate influence in these decisions. I believe in less regulation of people's personal freedoms and more regulation of powerful institutions, corporations, and industries that have not our interests in mind, but that of their bank accounts. He has not trampled my rights at all. He has respected the rights of many people who would be harassed or arrested simply because they spoke Spanish or had darker skin and a police officer felt that was probable cause to investigate them for some document. The right to not be intimidated by a police force for our cultural or racial heritage is one we all should expect. This isn't Ciudad Juárez. Mexican drug lords are not hopping over the NY/CT border to murder civilians. Your fear mongering is deplorable. Your rhetoric suggests that you'd rather live in a police state where we all wear arm bands. I would venture to say you don't actually believe that, but if not, your tone certainly suggests a bit more hypocrisy than mine.
Alphonse DeLachance January 26, 2012 at 03:39 AM
Mr. Dixon, The police should be identifying those that break the law no matter their race or heritage. There is a huge problem with that issue in our town and across the country with illegal immigrants. They pay no taxes and live off the benefit of others. Do you truly support that? The downfall of our country and the breakdown of society is directly tied to the lack of enforcement of our laws. No in New London under the rule of the police chief and the new king of New London we are down 14 police officers. If that is a good thing then those spots should remain vacant and provide a big savings to the community. But the reality is crime is up nearly 45% and the streets of New London are dangerous. So what is it you really want? You want the police to leave those that break the law alone? Think that through.
James Dixon January 26, 2012 at 04:22 AM
Of course the police should be identifying those that break the law regardless of their race or heritage. I agree that it is a problem that people live here illegally and don't pay taxes. I think many would if they didn't fear deportation back to the places they were escaping. If the immigrants you speak of (excuse me, aliens) are coming here from places as violent as Lori suggests, I'd even venture to call them refugees. They should be naturalized and given identities and required to pay taxes. Of course, these are just my beliefs and immigration policies are outside of the city government's power. As for the Mayor's order, he isn't telling them not to enforce a law, he's prioritizing investigation. Just like we wouldn't waste valuable resources investigating a stolen lollipop when someone stole a car, we shouldn't waste time harassing people for documentation when our "crime rate is up nearly 45%." You are suggesting that the streets are more dangerous as a result of some sudden influx of illegal aliens. I don't see any reason why that should be considered the case. I think you are being discriminatory in your assumptions of people that weren't born here. If there is one trend I would match with rising crime rates over the past few years, it would be unemployment rates as result of economic problems and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. When people lose their jobs, it puts tremendous pressure on families. Adults do desperate things for money. Children lose guidance.
Alan Green, Jr. January 26, 2012 at 04:41 AM
"I don’t think you can say New London is a “sanctuary city” without admitting that America is a sanctuary country." This gets my vote for most intelligent bite here. New London has a proud history of welcoming immigrants - legal and otherwise. Seems to me there are some here who would have turned away the Amistad passengers for lack of proper documentation? But James gets overall A+ for thorough responses. Of course, this common sense will be attacked. Just watch. You don't have to live like a refu-jee-hee....
Carol D. Fox January 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I agree with you James. It is a nationally ongoing problem supporting those from other countries whose American dream is just to survive. I don't want to add additional fuel to the fire, but perhaps some need to look for a more homogeneous city to live in. Thank goodness, that city will never be New London.
NewLondonSource January 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM
"I don’t think you can say New London is a “sanctuary city” without admitting that America is a sanctuary country." Exactly the problem; We need immigration reform on a national level. It's time for our country, our states and our cities/towns to start looking out for the people who matter - the taxpayers. Since they are the ones who bankroll the government, they should be the only ones reaping the benefits of its social programs. As I said before, I'm all for immigration - just do it like my ancestors had to - the legal way. Pay your way and don't expect a handout. Anything less would be an insult to our ancestral immigrants who sacrificed to build this country and make it what it is.
Daniel January 26, 2012 at 01:53 PM
I have no problem with the idea of American taxes paying for the undocumented to have access to health care and education, especially since it's generally American trade policies which create the need for people to flee their home countries in the first place, since I've campaigned for universal healthcare and free education for all, I figured it meant every for every member of our species, and I figured it didn't matter what paperwork they had on them...People before profits! One of the big reasons I'm not convinced that being a business person makes one a good candidate to be a public servant in elected office. We need humanitarians, not CEO's.
NewLondonSource January 26, 2012 at 03:21 PM
@Daniel: You embody what it means to be a communist or socialist. Scary to see any member of the American public thinking this way, especially since we have no historical examples of socialism ever being sustainable. The irony of all of this socialist thinking is that it inevitably creates an even bigger economic divide between the haves and have nots - much, much more than capitalism has ever done or could ever hope to do. Whatever happened to having a work ethic and earning your keep? It's a disgrace that people like Daniel believe in free handouts to illegals that exist within our borders and don't contribute to our bottom line tax-wise. That type of thinking is what erodes our quality of life and takes away any incentive for the tax-paying citizen to work harder - after all, why should I work harder when it doesn't improve my family's quality of life and just reinforces someone else's false sense of entitlement?
Daniel January 26, 2012 at 03:43 PM
You appear to use the terms communist and socialist interchangeably, when in fact they are quite different, mainly because private business markets can still thrive under socialism (in fact many social democracies have been rated the most business-friendly countries in the world). You also appear to use the terms as if I should be ashamed by identifying with them, when I am not in the slightest. The idea that socialism makes people "not have to work harder" is nothing but right-wing propaganda. You call it "free handouts", when I simply believe it is the government's responsibility to keep people alive and healthy and have a roof over their head. It is fiscally irresponsible to think that cutting social programs will encourage people to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps" when there is simply not enough economic resources to maintain people staying out of poverty (1 out of 3 people who escape poverty will be poor again within 5 years due to lack of resources). The rich are not earning more, they are just taking more- that is why worker's wages and company productivity plateau and CEO pay skyrockets, so who's really entitled? I have no problem and no shame in saying that I'm a radical socialist, and that won't change even if you call it "disgraceful". And also, my work ethic is just fine- I returned to finish my education while working several part time jobs, out on my own.
NewLondonSource January 26, 2012 at 05:33 PM
"..private business markets can still thrive under socialism (in fact many social democracies have been rated the most business-friendly countries in the world)." Have you actually been to any so called 'social democracies'? I think you need some real life experience, rather than reading articles. You infer yourself to be a humanitarian, yet you fail to realize that these same 'social democracies' that are good for business are actually toxic for their societal relations. Forget the USSR, just look at China. If you ever had been there, you'd notice a thriving upper class, but a lower class that is only marginally better off than it was a decade ago. Guess what demographic makes up most of China? "The idea that socialism makes people "not have to work harder" is nothing but right-wing propaganda. " Or reality, as evidenced by the collapse of so many socialist societies. "it is the government's responsibility to keep people alive and healthy and have a roof over their head." So what's the incentive for people to work to provide basic needs for themselves? "1 out of 3 people who escape poverty will be poor again within 5 years due to lack of resources" Like a true liberal, you look at that like it's a negative. A 66% success rate is extraordinary! "I returned to finish my education while working several part time jobs, out on my own." That's great, after all, there are more and more people depending on your fattened paycheck(s)!
Ronna Stuller January 26, 2012 at 05:38 PM
That is a good point, Daniel. I'd like to point out, as well, that the undocumented do pay many taxes. They certainly pay sales tax just like the rest of us when they make purchases. Most do have social security numbers (though often of dubious validity), and pay pay into the social security system - money they will not be able to retrieve upon retirement. Like all tenants, their rent payments go to paying their landlords' property taxes. They are not eligible for most public programs (like health, housing, child care or nutrition assistance); only educational programs such as Head Start are exempt from a citizenship requirement. I wonder if anyone has performed a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of these immigrants; it would not surprise me to learn that their contributions outweigh the burdens they bring to our community.
Daniel January 26, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Thanks for the laugh.
NewLondonSource January 26, 2012 at 07:54 PM
@Ronna: How would they obtain a Social Security # without reporting their immigration status to the government? Last I checked, non-citizens who don't have permission to work within the country cannot obtain a SSN. Further, if the employer is legally carrying an employee on the books (i.e., reporting them as an expense), they would require a SSN for that employee. Of course, we all know this isn't the reality for a lot of low paying jobs, but the point still stands. As far as health benefits, if they went to an emergency room, they would have to be admitted and treated - health insurance or not. Education? California and other states (Texas, NY) provide tuition assistance to illegals. Even CT recently provided in-state tuition privelages to illegals. What do they need to obtain these privelages? Just affirm that they plan to work towards obtaining legal status. Housing? All an illegal needs to do is share a public housing unit with a legal citizen and they can obtain federal housing aid. Nutrition? Last I checked, Illegals have no problem obtaining food stamps. Regardless, after all is said and done, most illegals don't pay the single largest tax we legal residents have levied upon us - income tax.
NewLondonSource January 26, 2012 at 07:56 PM
@Daniel: You're welcome, although I question your choice to laugh at such a serious issue facing our society.
Daniel January 26, 2012 at 08:25 PM
I'm not laughing at the issue, I'm laughing at you assuming I need life experience when you have no idea who I am, what I've done with my life, or why I believe the way that I do.
Alphonse DeLachance January 26, 2012 at 09:15 PM
James, the influx of undocumented people is a contributor to the crime increase. The undocumented fall under the radar easier and cannot be asked certain questions by police. Our tolerance of the illegal community and our intolerance of enforcement has impacted our society negatively. Yes they are here illegaly, that is a crime so they are part of the crime problem. Do not minimize their actions and crimes and make excuses for them. They are breaking the law and should be held accountable.
Lori Hopkins Cavanagh January 26, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Carol all illegals are involved in crime. It is criminal to be here illegally.
Alphonse DeLachance January 26, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Ronna, they are illegal. They are breaking the law. Why is that ok with you?
James Dixon January 26, 2012 at 09:36 PM
You just keep grouping people who came to this country who didn't follow a complex process with people who commit serious and dangerous crimes. I don't have a high tolerance for the "illegal community" if you are referring to serious crime. People who commit serious crimes against others need to be brought to justice. The police are allowed to ask an undocumented person the very same questions they ask a documented person. Your logic would group people who park illegally with murderers. Life, the law, and the world is a bit more complex than that.
James Dixon January 26, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Lori, a quick lesson in basic logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Doc Halliday February 07, 2012 at 12:30 PM
The residents of New London will be sorry if they allow the Mayor to make New London a sanctuary city. Look around and see the cities that are currently sanctuary cities and see the troubles they are having. Increased homelessness, crime, Occupy people, vandalism=increased taxes and more taxes. Someone has to pay for sanctuary people.
Alan Green, Jr. February 07, 2012 at 12:38 PM
I LOVE MY SANCTUARY CITY!!! NEW LONDON 2012 Increase Freedom! Increased Love! Increased Peace! Our city is a sanctuary from the ordinary, from the boring. We are a proud people who welcome EVERYONE. We have a rich history of eclectic, unacceptable people and now we can celebrate that in a way as never before. Celebrate your sanctuary! Look for T-Shirts for OpSail!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »