One of the issues that spurred our war of choice in Iraq was the false insistence by the criminal Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons. The premise was that he might fly a drone (nutty) or worse give one of his precious nukes to a terrorist group who would then try to smuggle it into the United States.

I am probably dating myself with this, but back when I was a kid one of the things that was almost an article of faith with my friends and I was the prospect of an nuclear war of some kind between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was not a daily worry but it was always there in the back of our heads. It led to a lot of blue sky talking about post apocalyptic survival (and the realization that Michigan had 300 primary targets and no one was likely to survive in the state if the worst happened).

Luckily the Cold War ended and the chance of world wide nuclear holocaust receded. However that dread is a part of many peoples childhood and still influences their thinking. While there is a much lower chance of a major nuclear war, there seems to be a higher chance of a single city being destroyed by a nuclear weapon.

Gaby Pacheco, Dream Act student, tells her story.

by Catherine A. Traywick, Media Consortium blogger

Anti-immigrant forces have adeptly shaped the ongoing immigration debate into an issue of crime and punishment. Now, the pending passage of a $600 million border security bill could breathe new life into the narrative of the criminal immigrant – despite the increasing safety of our border communities.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing for the Department of Homeland Security today. Over the course of nearly three hours Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was questioned about the running of her Department. Given the new law in Arizona and the looming Comprehensive Immigration Reform fight, most of the questions centered on immigration and the boarder.

Several Senators tried to get the DHS Secretary to give an opinion as to whether the “Papers Please” law in Arizona was constitutional or not. Being a good politician Sec. Napolitano kept deferring to the Department of Justice which is currently reviewing the case law and did not offer her own opinion.

However, when asked about its affects on law enforcement, if it should be allowed to go into effect, she was not shy in detailing the ways that it would be a net negative. One of the biggest issues is the level of distrust that such enforcement would engender between the Latino community and all levels of law enforcement. When a community feels that laws are punitive they do not come forward with the kind of information that allows effective enforcement of all the laws.

The cause for concern generated by the rising number of violent anti-government incidents.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security tried to pressure undocumented alien informants to provide intel on terrorism. If they didn’t they’d be deported. Now ICE is following through on its demands, and the government frenzy to manufacture terrorist threat appears to be out of control.

A “modest proposal” from 2006 that looks like it will soon be followed up on

What’s the best way to help workers form a union in a workplace where managers have spent years wantonly violating labor laws by threatening and intimidating workers into resisting unionization? If you’re the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the answer would seem to be “get rid of the workers.” At least, that is one of the main recommendations contained within a rather confusing new CIS report on the aftermath of the January 2007 immigration raids conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at the Smithfield pork plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina. Holding up Smithfield as a prototype for the nation, the CIS report vaguely suggests that destructive immigration raids and a flawed electronic employment-verification system will not only succeed in draining millions of unauthorized immigrants from the United States, but bolster unionization for American workers, too. These are fanciful notions at best.

Last Friday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced changes to the controversial 287(g) program—a program which allows state and local police agencies to partner with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws. DHS also announced that, rather than waiting for the new policies to be implemented and tested, it has expanded the problematic 287(g) program with 11 new Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs).

As the U.S. moves closer and closer to enacting immigration reform, the situation on the ground is evolving as well. Nothing is static for an issue that touches so many people across so many communities. This week’s wire follows up on trends observed last week: holding mainstream media accountable, enforcement tactics, and immigration’s positive effect on the economy.