Mayor, City Council Grapple With Sanctuary City Designation

Agree or not, legal or not, one thing Donald Trump has shown in his two weeks as president is he puts words into action. He also promises to hold back federal funds from communities that designate as sanctuary city. Federal courts will likely decide the issue. Trump is no stranger to litigiousness.

Via CT Post reporter Brian Lockhart we share this shameless self-promotion (after all, I worked for Trump).

Lennie Grimaldi runs the Only in Bridgeport blog, advised Ganim when he was first mayor and also worked for Trump. Grimaldi said Trump has two types of relationships–“those who are with him and those who are enemies.”

“Joe’s a strategist,” Grimaldi said. “He’s not an ideologue. … Clearly (he) has enough of a relationship with the President that if he says the right things it could come back and aid the city. … He’s only going to embrace this sanctuary city thing if he feels like he’s pushed there so hard he can’t come back from it.”

Full story here.



  1. Let all those on the council who vote to make this a sanctuary city get arrested for violating federal law, then make it a law that these illegals move into neighborhoods occupied by these people. Next let’s give criminal Americans the right to live anywhere with no patrol checks.

      1. Tried to read it all, had to take a break. On my father’s side, twin brothers landed in Boston harbor as British citizens and soldiers sent to stop the American revolution. The night they landed, they turned their redcoats wrong side out and hightailed it to Kentucky and Indiana. We are the original turncoats, which is what everyone living here were when this country was founded. I’m also DAR, because one part of the family died (in CT) fighting for America freedom in the revolutionary war. As I recall a lot of people were here originally, and still come here because of religious persecution. I am always leery of anyone with extreme one-sided my-way-or-the-highway views.

  2. I totally support Sanctuary City status. However, our neighbor New York is already a sanctuary city. Bridgeport is the largest city in the state as well as the poorest. Joe Ganim would be a moron to put the city in jeopardy from receiving federal funding. People need to think with their brains and not with their heart. We are a needy welfare city. That’s the first time I have acknowledged this reality. Who in hell would put the city in jeopardy like that?

    I appreciate the humanistic approach of the activists who support this and I call many friends, but seriously? We are just not in the position of supporting refugees and losing federal funding at the same time. New York has that designation and they are better able to fight Trump. Let’s be honest. Bridgeport does not have the ability to survive the wrath of the most disgusting President we have ever known. I know so many who voted for this bastard and I am still shocked. Joe, this is a no-brainer. Let the Sanders supporters get their heads out of their asses. Trump is President. No free college and we cannot afford to lose federal funding as the welfare city.

    1. I’ll have what Steven Auerbach smoked. “… Joe Ganim would be a moron to put the city in jeopardy from receiving federal funding … We are just not in the position of supporting refugees and losing federal funding at the same time.”

      “Who in hell would put the city in jeopardy like that?”

      Look in the mirror, Steven:
      Steven Auerbach // Feb 2, 2017 at 7:50 pm
      I totally support Sanctuary city status.

      1. Joel Gonzalez, I do not understand your post at all. “look in the mirror, Steven?” Let me be clearer. If I were Mayor, I would not put the city at risk of losing federal funding. We are a needy welfare city. How much more crap can we bear? Let New York and California carry the burden they can afford. If you want to add a comment by all means, just do not use my post and add a cute little anecdote. My rationale is simple. Trump holds a grudge. We do not need to be at risk. That is my opinion. I support sanctuary status of wealthier cities. We are a welfare city that carries the brunt of Section 8 housing, public housing, social services and grossly overtaxed with dirty streets and failing schools. What the fuck do you not get!

        I want Syrian refugees to find safe haven in New York and California, states that can fight Trump. Connecticut is broke and Bridgeport is on the brink of financial disaster. If federal funding was not being threatened, I’d support it. So as Mayor, I Steven Auerbach would respectfully look after the the taxpayers of this city and decline. Like our school system could handle this. Slumlords would be thrilled.

        1. Ahhh Steven, I hurt your feelings again? Go back and read your post. You’re playing both sides with your position.

          You asked: “Who in hell would put the city in jeopardy like that?”

          I then asked you to look in the mirror as you opened your post with: “I totally support Sanctuary city status.”

          You come off like a NIMBY. You support it as long as it’s not in your back yard.

          Proposing a pro sanctuary city status resolution is not going to work. Ordering the police to ignore federal law enforcement efforts?

          I disagree that the City Of Bridgeport has never taken a position in favor of some sanctuary designation. Under the Bill Finch administration, Police Officers were instructed to leave undocumented immigrants alone at a Grant Street location and instructed them where they can congregate and not be bothered.

          1. Joel, you didn’t hurt my feelings. I made it simple. I support sanctuary for Syrian refugees. It has nothing to do with NIMBY it has to do with Federal funding. I couldn’t make it any clearer. You are not that stupid and I think you understood clearly what I said.

          2. Steve we are on the same page; I just have better lighting.

            Oh shit, Steve a light just went on in my head. Ganim is a lawyer and acts and thinks as one. Before anyone jumps in to point out that Joe Ganim is not a lawyer, hold on I’ll get to that.

            “Joe’s a strategist,” Grimaldi said. “He’s not an ideologue. … Clearly (he) has enough of a relationship with the President that if he says the right things it could come back and aid the city.

            Okay Lennie, that’s a good analysis. However, i think Joe Ganim sees an even greater benefit or “aid”. I dare to predict that when Donald Trump leaves the Office of the President, Joe Ganim will get his bonus in the form of a Presidential Pardon.
            Lennie did this cross your mind? I have a light bulb I can give you.

    2. The city is already home to refugees from Mexico, Central and South America, the Middle East (and the suburbs, for that matter).

      Mr. Trump is angling to spend $12 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money to build a wall along the Mexican border. I’d rather the money were spent putting young people through college. There are too many ignoramuses in America. They all voted for The Donald.

      1. Come on Bridgeport Kid, you think I don’t know you? What bother you most about Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the Mexican border is the part in which Trump plans to increase the tariff on 10 brands of Mexican beers and you will have to join Andy Fardy in his Budweiser filled Garage or pay more for your favorite Mexican beer. Just don’t mix with your meds.

  3. The legal question–statutory matter–of whether or not Bridgeport should become a sanctuary city is not a simple matter for expeditious consideration by the city council and mayor.

    It would seem the citizens/voters of Bridgeport have a right and need to be involved in such a decision. It is an important decision that can play a role in sealing our moral and fiscal fates for many years to come.

    The community needs to be able to hear the details of the ramifications for making a decision either way.

    How can we protect ourselves from making the wrong decision in a world rife with danger while being a community in a divided country in political flux?

    We certainly don’t want to leave innocent refugees and benign undocumented people vulnerable to serious dangers and cruel fates when it is in our power to intervene on their behalf. And we certainly don’t want to take actions that would result in our city accelerating its decades-long journey down the socioeconomic toilet that has become “post-industrial” America. Indeed; in so many ways we have become a city of (socioeconomic) refugees, with failing schools, decaying, dangerous neighborhoods of high unemployment, violence, and broken dreams.

    If we can bring the right parties with the right information to our community to help us make an informed decision about how to proceed with the question of whether or not to become a sanctuary city, we can probably also find the best way for our city to navigate forward in the face of all our obstacles and tripfalls in this current, most dangerous national/world political and socioeconomic environments.

    Let’s get some town hall meetings set up in Bridgeport where we can get legal representatives from both sides of the sanctuary city issue to give us the information we need, as a community, to be part of the decision-making process. Maybe we should have a referendum in this regard. It might be the thing we need to clarify a lot of things about Bridgeport’s overall situation and what we need to do to ameliorate our whole political/socioeconomic situation.

    Right now, the people of Bridgeport are caught in the middle of a national/state political $#!+storm. We need information, clarification, and input about how to proceed in our “brave new” political world. How about a series of town meetings followed by a referendum opportunity, perhaps in conjunction with the fall municipal elections?

  4. I agree with Steve Auerbach. I am very concerned for the city’s tenuous political and financial condition. We are a small- to mid-sized city in the national picture. There is something to be said for playing it safe with the status quo.

    That’s where I start. But I also agree with Jeff Kohut, this is a tremendous opportunity for community education, values clarification, and consensus building. I am inclined to have the debate proceed in the city, and let the Council table the matter while the citizenry discerns a common viewpoint.

    Mayor Joe Ganim’s statement last month on the sanctuary city question was thoughtful, elegant, compassionate, persuasive, insightful and mayoral. He expressed his viewpoint well, and when I saw him at Monday’s resistance rally at McLevy Green, I congratulated him.

    The lesson of the Trump presidency so far is not to be hasty, not to be rash, and not to squelch the views of others. Let our debate continue in a process that elicits the best views of the city.

    1. These maps from The New York Times convey a lot of factual information about sanctuary cities, counties, and states in the land.

      States include Connecticut. Counties appear to include Hartford County, though I wonder how in the absence of county government such a designation was made, unless through a regional council of governments, perhaps.

      Cities include Hartford and New Haven.

      I recommend these maps.

      1. DougDavidoff, thanks for the link to the map. Interesting to notice California and Colorado seem to be huge states and big violators. I wonder if Trump has seen this map and if in due time he will use the threat of sending in the Feds to shut down the marijuana operations in these two states.

  5. “Lennie Grimaldi runs the Only in Bridgeport blog, …”

    Lennie, could you correct Brian Lockhart and let him know We, the OIB Posters, run this ‘webzine.’

    1. A fine piece of editing, Lennie my boy.
      You would think the Post ran the story about you rather than an afterthought as it actually was.
      Keep up the good work!

  6. That is one reason Paoletto and Vizzo-Paniccia cited for opposing the sanctuary city ordinance.

    “We’re already a cash-strapped city,’ Paoletto said. ‘Any threat to lose any funding we should take seriously.”

    He and Vizzo-Paniccia also worried if Bridgeport becomes even more appealing to undocumented immigrants, it will place a greater burden on a police department that has been struggling with around 100 vacancies.

    I’m pretty sure undocumented immigrants feel threatened by Trump as much as the two council members mentioned above. I wonder what makes them think undocumented immigrants find Bridgeport appealing in the first place and to add insult to injury, state because of undocumented immigrants our police force have been struggling and could struggle more if more immigrants come to Bridgeport. I bet there has been more undocumented immigrants who have been victims of crime in Bridgeport than those arrested for serious crimes.

    I wonder if the reason these folks on the council have refused to adequately fund our schools has anything to do with not wanting to make our schools more appealing to undocumented immigrants. It is not our fault the Federal Government hasn’t been able to STOP the illegal entry to the USA, spread out all across the land, and we have to pay for the financial consequences of educating their kids. I’d like to see these two council members demand the Federal Government (TRUMP) pay us for the cost of their failed policies.

  7. I totally support Bridgeport as sanctuary city, we either stand for basic freedom or not. The Mayor is more interested in a developer’s money than making a statement on people’s basic freedom. It is like Trump’s wall. You think a wall will stop people who are hungry from crossing the border and entering this great country. Employment in Mexico, economic growth in Mexico, equality in Mexico is going to stop people from coming over the border. We need to build bridges, not walls.

  8. I support Sanctuary City status as well.

    San Francisco was the first Sanctuary City to file a lawsuit against Trump for threatening to withhold federal funding, claiming it was illegal. Blumenthal also stated it was illegal.

    Here we go.

  9. For you Harvey, I’m going to weigh in. Being labeled a “sanctuary city” and the City Council wanting to vote on a proposal for said label is bullshit in its meaning. State law and city proposals, or whatever they are going contemplate on voting for, will not trump federal law. It can’t stop federal agencies for enforcing the law. However the State and City can and have overlooked federal laws.

    Case in point, marijuana is federally a class one substance, which means every State that is selling or even using it for medical use is in violation of federal law. So that being said, the city doesn’t have to participate in any efforts regarding illegal deportation nor can they stop it with this proposal.

    If the federal government wanted to arrest every entity using or disbursing marijuana they could. So what are we really talking about here?

    Steve is right, Trump’s order can stop funding to cities. So why would the city put a label on itself that has no meaning and no power to protect illegal immigrants? In fact the proposal and label could take money away for them and many others.

    There are many reasons in my opinion. On the outside looking in, “emotion.” It could be the kindness in someone’s heart or the coldness in someone’s heart who would want people to suffer with the thought of funding being withheld. On the inside it’s politics as usual, it puts the Mayor and City against the president. And those who orchestrated this movement are doing it with ill intent to keep Bridgeport from any benefit Ganim may have with the president.

  10. The next Connecticut gubernatorial election is 2018.
    I’m sure if Trump wants to punish Joe “Quasimodo” Ganim and the people of Bridgeport as well as the State for being a Sanctuary city, our Governor will be more than happy to hold back any and all Federal Taxes from Washington. The Quasimodo Revenge!

        1. I call upon Mayor Ganim and the City Council to proclaim Bridgeport a Sanctuary City!
          A City that gives people a second chance, a city that has always opened its arms to immigrants of all denominations, a city that was built by immigrants, are we now that conceited we forgot where we came from?
          Open the flucking gate Mayor, and stop pandering to Trump!!!

          1. Andy, if I were you I’d leave Jim Fox and his illegals alone. It’s not hard to hire a Coyote to take your ass into Mexico and release you in the middle of Tijuana with a Donald Trump mask glued to your head.

  11. Can you give me sanctuary I must find a place to hide.
    A place for me to hide.
    Can you find me soft asylum, I can’t take it any more,
    The Man is at my door.

    Jim Morison and the Doors.

  12. What happens when you live on a steady diet of Honey Boo Boo and X Men? You elect a cartoon character President. Wake up and smell the ballistic missiles, Kids.

      1. Yeah. With Trump you’ve got both. A man under investigation (let’s start with his taxes and go from there) and a man definitely on the prowl (just ask Billy Bush).
        Such character. And a liar on top of that. Let’s go to his promise to release his tax returns once the audit is done and then NOT.

  13. I say go for the designation. We can always capitulate if need be but I think this is crazy.
    We should stand up for what we believe in rather than wait and see and be an afterthought in the whole argument.

  14. As Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    The Trump administration’s unprecedented hostility and threats–toward us all, including those of us who are immigrants and refugees–are antithetical to our nation and our cornerstone values of liberty and justice for all. Let’s not give in to phantom fears and alternative facts. Let’s, instead, summon the moral courage and collective wisdom to stand up for our city and our nation of immigrants and make clear we are a “Sanctuary City.” Do it because it’s right. Do it because you value the dignity and humanity of your fellow citizens. And do it to honor our immigrant forefathers whose cultures, ideas, and perspectives have helped to invent and shape the United States of America, now in its 241st year.

  15. You are either for the rule of law or you aren’t! Sanctuary cities violate the rule of law. Immigration is a federal matter under the U.S. Constitution. I am all for comprehensive immigration reform that, among other things, provides for separate pathways to legal status and citizenship based on specific criteria. I am also against mass deportation of illegals who do not represent a threat to society. Do not kid yourself, the Trump Administration is likely to penalize Sanctuary Cities financially over time. Any related litigation could be tied up in the courts for years. Voting to make Bridgeport a Sanctuary City would be both inappropriate and stupid given the current state of Bridgeport and the current state of affairs in Washington DC.

  16. Well Mr. Walker since we’re talking about the rule of law and whether you are for it or against it, how does that apply to the sale and ingestion of marijuana? It’s against Federal law, but Connecticut and other states sell it for medical and recreational use. Hmmm, I guess it’s not a matter of law if it benefits a state’s ability to make money off its implementation. So much for you’re either for or against the rule of law.

    1. Donald,
      I oppose legalizing marijuana for recreational use so I don’t really get your point. I do, however, agree there are plenty of hypocritical politicians in Washington, Hartford and Bridgeport.

  17. Dave,
    When I Google “rule of law and Sanctuary City,” a lot of results from Breitbart. Coincidence?

    The Fugitive Slave Act was once the “rule of law” too. Our legal system evolves. See the American Bar Association info on the Rule of Law in History.

    And check out this excellent recent article.

    “Sanctuary Cities Are Safe, Thanks to Conservatives” by Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman.

    President-elect Donald Trump says he will make “sanctuary cities” help deport immigrants by taking away their federal funding if they don’t change their policies. The good news is he and Congress can’t do it–not without violating the Constitution.

    Two core rules of federalism preclude Trump’s idea: The federal government can’t coerce states (or cities) into action with a financial “gun to the head,” according to Supreme Court precedent developed by Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2012 Affordable Care Act case. And federal officials can’t “commandeer” state officials to do their work for them under a 1997 decision that involved gun purchases under the Brady Act.

    Immigration Reform

    Behold the revenge of conservative federalism: Judge-made doctrines developed to protect states’ rights against progressive legislation can also be used to protect cities against Trump’s conservative policies. Ain’t constitutional law grand?

    As you may recall, Roberts’s landmark opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius both upheld Obamacare and gutted it at the same time. Roberts voted to uphold the individual insurance mandate as a permissible use of Congress’s power to tax. But he simultaneously struck down the Medicaid extension except insofar as states might choose it voluntarily.

    The ACA as written threatened states with eventual withdrawal of essentially all their Medicaid funding unless they agreed to the extension of the program to millions of new patients.

    Roberts analyzed the issue by saying that, under the spending clause of the Constitution, Congress can’t create a funding condition that is unrelated to the original funding purpose and is so coercive that it amounts to a “gun to the head” of the states. Roberts’s doctrine applies with full force to Trump’s threat to pull cities’ existing funding if they remain sanctuaries by declining to cooperate with federal officials to enforce immigration law.

    Existing federal funding for cities isn’t connected to immigration. It’s less connected than existing Medicaid funding was to the ACA Medicaid extension. That funding, like Medicaid, is justified in the first place by Congress’s power to spend for the general welfare.

    And pulling the funding would be just about as coercive as pulling Medicaid. New York City alone could lose $10.4 billion annually in federal money.

    In the only case in which the Supreme Court allowed conditional funding, Congress threatened to take away 5 percent of highway money if states didn’t raise the drinking age to 21. Taking all federal funding from cities is certainly much closer to the ACA precedent than the highway one.

    Nor does it matter that the ACA case involved states not cities. As a matter of federal constitutional law, cities are just instruments of states. Coercing cities amounts to coercing states, which would have to come up with money to help the cities.

    The “gun to the head” doctrine alone would be enough to render Trump’s proposal unconstitutional. But there’s more.

    Another federalism doctrine, known as the “anti-commandeering principle,” says that the federal government can’t require state officials to enforce federal law. Its leading formulation was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1997 case of Printz v. U.S.

    The Printz decision struck down provisions of the Brady Act that required state and local law enforcement officials to do background checks of firearm purchasers. Scalia reasoned that the federal system separates state officials from the executive chain of command that covers federal employees. And he concluded that the constitutional system of federalism bars Congress from pressing state officials into service to execute federal laws.

    That’s exactly what Trump wants to make city officials do: cooperate in the enforcement of federal law. The Constitution makes immigration law the purview of federal, not state government.

    That means it would be illegal commandeering to require state officials to enforce federal law. Checking immigration status is no different from doing a gun background check.

    It’s well worth noting that the gun-to-the-head doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle were both developed by conservative justices to thwart progressive results. But the beauty–and the sting–of constitutional law is that doctrines developed in one political setting can be deployed in another.

    When Congress passes progressive laws like the ACA or the Brady Act, conservatives dissent using federalism arguments. Now, with a Republican Congress and president, it will be progressives’ turn to rely on states’ rights.

    That isn’t hypocrisy–it’s the natural progression of the law, which should apply neutrally, regardless of who’s in power. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    As I argued in a column I wrote at 3 a.m. after the election, it’s all about the Constitution now. The protection of sanctuary cities is an example of how the Constitution protects minority rights–in this case the rights of cities that dissent on immigration policy.

      1. Any issue that causes taxpayers, and especially members of the City Council, to remember revenue flows is a “good issue” in my book. Have you ever heard Council person Paoletto raise a financial concern before? Doesn’t he remember the Monthly Financial Report shows no obvious Federal Funds except in the Board of Education, where the School Nutrition Program gets about $14 Million annually to provide meals to 21,000 youth in our schools? Can you see Trump trying to shut off those funds to school-age youth? Why, it would politicize an entire range of adults who are or can be registered to vote but at this time see no practical reason, even on election or primary days when they visit school sites to deliver or pick up school-age kids but fail to vote.
        And while I support “the rule of law” as Dave Walker does, this subject may have laws running in multiple directions that only a court can decide in a specific instance. We have already seen how Executive Orders (as “laws”) are countered in the short, medium or long term (choose one) and the desire for an active sheriff is frustrated by chaos and confusion, haven’t we? Are we continuing in the “interesting times” referred to in the Oriental curse? Time will tell.

  18. Also of interest, for those claiming this is just a “partisan issue”:

    The GOP’s condemnation of ‘sanctuary cities’ is surprisingly awkward in Iowa
    Washington Post 1-31-16

    Pottawattamie County Sheriff Jeff Danker said that he did not want his jail to keep anyone without a proper warrant. Keeping someone longer for the sake of immigration officials, he said, could be a civil rights violation.

    Danker, who describes himself as a conservative, said he hoped the presidential candidates’ focus on sanctuary policies was just political bluster.

    “When you bring things down to a local level, things are not so clear-cut,” he said.

    Over the next few days, Danker expects a flurry of phone calls and visits from presidential campaigns. Trump is expected to visit Council Bluffs, as is Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    The city, which has a dual identity as a small town nestled beside endless rows of cornfields to the east and as a suburb of metropolitan Omaha to the west, is vote-rich and not particularly ideological. Twenty-seven percent of voters were registered as Democrats, 37 percent are Republican, and the rest are affiliated with no party at all.

    In a county of 93,000 residents, about 6 percent are Hispanic or Latino, according to census data. Those immigrants have largely supplemented an aging workforce on farms and in factories as younger white residents decamp for cities, according to Melvyn Houser, a corn and soybean farmer who serves on the county’s board of supervisors.

    Houser, a Republican who said he plans to caucus for one of the former governors in the field, said that he believes GOP candidates who talk about having the federal government punish sanctuary cities are contradicting traditional conservative values of limited government and local control.

    “This isn’t Texas or Arizona, where there are issues at the border and its more of a burden on the local schools and hospitals,” Houser said. “If the federal government wants something done, they should get their act together and do it. They shouldn’t try and take away funding while we get stuck with all the work and responsibility.”

  19. May I comment on this issue Massa John Marshall Lee even though it’s not a Colored Issue? I’s trying to stay in my Colored place Massa Lee, but it’s berry, berry hard. Please advise, Sir.

    1. TO: Donald Day

      Dear Sir,
      Didn’t I read a comment above offered from your pen already? I believe you had questions of David Walker about marijuana use and the rule of law. Perhaps I am mistaken?

      And then I read another posting directed to me who has raised no mention of you or the subject of marijuana in what I can only describe as “minstrel show style.” What is you intent, Mr. Bones? Are you attempting to model responsible adult dialogue between two community males, each of us colored per understanding of the word in NAACP? I am not your “Massa.” I am actually your servant in the sense that each month as you receive a retirement benefit from Bridgeport Plan A, I am attempting to keep the public aware of the fiscal jeopardy of that funding and of that promise, at a time when you no longer have a union representation and are not even a City resident at last mention.
      On another thread I invite you to join people of all colors at the next NAACP meeting and to work in concert with the several projects that seek justice where presently unfairness reigns. The “hardest” place to be in this City is for people to get over their individuality and work together towards a common objective that they have chosen in community. That may seem harder than maintaining your “place” or the status quo, but it is not, Donald Day. But time will tell.

      1. What don’t I understand you asked JML? How about “Black and white comments are off the mark in this situation, regardless of what OIB’s guardians of colored issues have to say.”
        So you make reference to Ron and myself as the guardians of Colored Issues so may I ask just what colored issues are we guardians of, Red issues, Green issues or maybe Blue issues.

        Now I know you’ll try to clean up this response with some Ivy League white jargon, but the fact is your comment reeked of bigotry and was demeaning to every black person who read its content. As much as you think you know about black people and our condition you still haven’t learned the basics, that which is offensive to us as a people and what white people can’t say under any circumstances. Joking or otherwise JML, your characterization of Ron and myself as arbiters of Colored (Black) issues offends a large segment of Black America that fought long and hard not to be called Colored and now you are a white member of the NAACP in 21st century America still referring to two black males as Colored. Shame on you and if the NAACP doesn’t reprimand you, then shame on them too.

        I just found my membership card and I’ll be at that meeting demanding an apology for all those blacks, living and dead who find being referred to as Colored offensive, in the 21st century.

        I’ve always wondered why you always came to the rescue of the hate-filled racist and vitriolic speech of Andy and Tom and now I know, birds of a feather flock together.

        For you to characterize Black issues as Colored Issues is an affront to all that is decent and moral and a supposedly intelligent educated man would never do that. I am writing a letter to the National NAACP office with a copy of this post and a copy of my NAACP membership card to express my outrage at this characterization of Colored Issues. And now you take your racist rant one step further and refer to me as a minstrel show and by calling me Bones. You sir are a piece of crap and I find myself disappointed not in you but in me forever thinking you were a decent man. Fuck you, JML. You’re a piece of crap just like ya boys Andy and Tom.

  20. As a life-long resident of Bridgeport, and a witness to its financial decline and loss of tax revenue along with rising crime and poverty; I implore you all to give serious consideration to the ramifications of making Bridgeport a “Sanctuary City!”

    First off, with our rising education costs in this city and reduced tax income, the last thing we need here are more immigrants, either legal, illegal or “refugees” with housing, employment, healthcare and education needs. We cannot afford to build more schools and hire more teachers who teach only in Spanish and Arabic. And under the New Administration, do not expect any aid as a Sanctuary City from Washington DC, since the President has clearly stated his desire to Defund Sanctuary Cities!!!

    Most of these families are renters, and many do not even have automobiles, which means they are contributing absolutely nothing in the way of property taxes toward the education of their children; not to mention many of them will be relying on State and City funding just to survive. How can we possibly afford this without raising taxes on an already overburdened tax base, many of whom are senior citizens on fixed incomes?

    “Sanctuary” is normally for victims, but in the United States, Sanctuary Cities have become havens for illegal immigrants, drug cartel criminals and unvetted jihadis. Bridgeport has enough problems without becoming, likewise, a haven for the aforementioned elements. In my little condo complex in the North End, I am already witnessing increasing numbers of immigrants with families of six members living in one-bedroom condos intended for two adults, and as many as ten people sharing two-bedroom condos. Surely this violates city occupancy regulations and it is doubling and tripling our condo water and sewer bills, not to mention rubbish removal. This has to stop!

  21. “Most of these families are renters, and many do not even have automobiles, which means they are contributing absolutely nothing in the way of property taxes …”

    Think before you post ignorant statements like this. Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not an ignorant statement, it’s your Alternative Fact.

    Most rental property owners use the rent money to cover their property tax bill.

  22. It took you a long time to notice the population and immigration shift. What shape would the City of Bridgeport be in if there weren’t enough people to rent apartments? You can’t ignore the fact many immigrants are good people and many own properties and businesses in Bridgeport too. The same issues affect cities with no sanctuary designation.

Leave a Reply