Tonight I attended the immigration reform rally on the National Mall with thousands of other protesters demanding comprehensive and consistent immigration laws. There are plenty of myths about immigrant labor. But one thing I know for sure as a result of attending the rally last night: there are a lot of Mexican immigrants in this country. I've read the numbers and glanced at the charts, but I didn't really comprehend until I saw hundreds of thousands of Mexicans streaming down Pennsylvania Avenue.

The immigration debate has become more complex in recent months as a result of new Congressional proposals to curb illegal immigration. Although none of them is explicit, these proposals are designed to address illegal immigration from only one country: Mexico. It seems trivial to make this distinction explicit, but it is the first step towards understanding the context of the immigration referendum. No policy proposal debated in Congress or elsewhere will ameliorate the immigration situation without first acknowledging the role that Mexican-American foreign policy (namely trade) plays in providing the financial incentive for millions of Mexicans to cross the border legally or illegally each year. It has been 14 years since NAFTA was adapted. Trade adjustment assistance for Mexican workers has never really been funded. As a result, there are no two contiguous countries in the world with a greater income disparity than the U.S. and Mexico. None of the proposals in Congress seriously takes this into consideration, which is why they are all doomed to fail in the long-term.

There's been a lot of discussion about the US response to Iran's nuclear weapons development program.  President Ahmadinejad is one crazy dude, and Dick Cheney would love to invite him on a quail-hunting trip.  As I understand it, when folks in the administration discuss using "military options" against Iran, they basically mean nukes.  This is primarily because the majority of the suspected nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground and can't be destroyed with conventional military weapons, thus the need for a nuclear bomb to ensure these strategic targets have been decimated.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this.  I would like to say that it is a bad idea partially because it is  loosely based on an antiquated "first-strike" policy of the Cold War military strategy, the assumptions of which (threats from communist Soviet Union) are no longer valid.  And  perhaps more importantly, the policy is inconsistent with the Nonproliferation Treaty.  But how else do you ameliorate a situation in which a very angry man who would like to blow up your country, is developing the capability to do so?