Two years after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) swept up and detained thousands of workers from six meatpacking plants across the country during one of the nation’s largest immigration raids, a new report released by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) today details how ICE officials terrorized UFCW members under the “standard operating procedures” of the Bush administration.

On December 12, 2006, ICE used 133 warrants to arrest 1,297 workers–the vast majority U.S. citizens. One U.S. citizen spent $90 on a cab ride back home once ICE released her after realizing they had made the “mistake” of detaining her for 12 hours in a location 300 miles away from her workplace.

The UFCW accuses ICE of having engaged in racial profiling, as witnesses testified that minorities were “singled out,” saying “…race was, almost without question, the sole criteria for harsher interrogations and treatment to which certain workers were subjected…” A UFCW member is quoted in the report as saying:

“It’s so sad and it hurts a lot to be targeted because we are Mexican…I thought maybe I should hang around a lot of white people so they wouldn’t think I was illegal.“

The UFCW also claims that ICE systematically ignored due process laws. According to the UFCW, workers detained during the Swift raid were denied legal counsel while they were being held at an Iowa military base. The UFCW claims that, in some cases, ICE even gave false information to lawyers, telling them that they would soon be granted access to their clients while the detainees were actually being transferred to out-of-state facilities.

At the time, many believed the Bush administration’s harsh immigration tactics were meant to help make the case for comprehensive immigration reform. Former Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said that the his department’s tactics reflected DHS’ “determination to make a down-payment on credibility with the American people.” However, the Bush-backed immigration bill failed during the summer of 2007 and the large-scale raids continued up until Bush left office.

Bush may be gone, but the aftermath of the raids endures. The UFCW report claims that the previous administration’s harsh immigration enforcement tactics have stirred “hysteria around immigration and immigrants.” Immigrants who fear being turned over to immigration authorities have been reluctant to report abuse or crime to the police. According to the report, Latinos or individuals “perceived” to be of Latin American descent face even more discrimination and racial profiling in their communities. The UFCW also discusses the raid’s cost to taxpayers. It’s estimated that the Bush administration’s immigration raids may have cost ICE $154 billion of taxpayer’s money.

In a press call today, UFCW president Joe Hansen called for “a new chapter in the immigration debate” that “works for America’s workers.”

Our guest blogger is Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Chris Bowers took major exception to an article I recently wrote supporting US funding for the IMF. I was motivated to write the article by the neocon rants equating money for the IMF to money down the drain — despite the fact that the IMF was bailing out countries that the US would certainly not let fail, at a fraction of the cost of us trying to do it alone. As I wrote, that is an argument that I don’t consider very serious.

But some progressives in Congress also wanted to tie the IMF funding to specific changes in how the IMF conducts its business, with an eye toward more sensitivity to poor countries and greater transparency. I am very sympathetic to these goals, and this argument IS serious.

I think we should give the new Administration a chance to engage, however. It is sometimes hard to remember, but we are coming off of eight years in which the US disparaged and belittled multilateral organizations and often ignored them. The Administration now, wisely, wants to reengage. From the IMF, the US wants not only to continue to save countries from bankruptcy, but also to become a forum for examining China’s undervalued currency. In pursuing a broader agenda, the Administration can and has pushed for reforms, with some success, and we should give that approach some time to work. It shows more respect for a multilateral process that involves many countries than does categorical US demands. Moreover, if we attach hefty conditions, other countries might too, and that will complicate the whole process greatly.

Second, we are still in the throes of a once-in-a-century economic crisis. The IMF has already relaxed some of its conditions to ensure that it can act quickly and not cause additional social harm. But I fear that some of the new requirements that the members of congress want, like requiring Parliamentary approval for loan packages, could slow the process down too much at this juncture, and, in the end, cause more harm.

Finally, the US has been pushing hard for underdeveloped countries to get more of a say in IMF decisions. That pressure has had resulted in a marginal increase in voice for the underrepresented, with the promise of more to come. The answer to the problem of badly designed loan packages for poor countries is for poor countries themselves to have a greater hand in decision-making.

Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, a Research Associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

With foreign journalists effectively being ordered out of Iran, the circle of available public information about what’s going on in the streets of Iran will narrow to videos and emails sent to blogs (like Huffington Post’s live blog, run by Think Progress alum Nico Pitney) and Tweets coming from inside the country. As our information becomes more limited, the debate as to what the Obama administration should do with regard to the pro-democracy protests in Iran is heating up. Conservatives like John McCain and Eric Cantor say the United States should make a noisy show of support for the protesters, believing that by being “steadfast” we can somehow bend the will of the Iranian regime.

President Obama has taken a different tack, stating in a press appearance that he is “deeply troubled” by the post-election violence and affirming “the democratic process -– free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent –- all those are universal values and need to be respected.”

At the same time, the president has made clear that the choice of their country’s leadership is ultimately in the hands of the Iranian people. On Monday, he struck the made “very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.” Speaking Monday with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, Obama struck the same note, saying the course of the protest movement “is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide.”

While this measured, delicate approach may not satisfy the consciences of some observers, it’s probably the correct approach for the United States to take. On the one hand, it couches the Iranian protesters’ courageous battle on behalf of their votes in terms of universal values of democracy and human rights rather than making it a conflict between the Iranian government and Washington. On the flip side, it also acknowledges the history of U.S. involvement in Iran’s internal politics, and recognizes that this history means full-throated, direct American support for the protests could undermine them by giving the hard-liners an excuse to crack down.

It’s equally important that Iranians make democratic change themselves, without the United States taking or being seen to take credit for such change. Too often during the Bush administration, conservatives exploited positive developments toward more democratic systems in places like Lebanon and Egypt (the so-called “Arab Spring”) to vindicate their own policy preferences. But these developments soon faded as violence in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian Territories grew, and the chaos began to be associated with U.S. promotion of democratic governance. Trumpeting democratic reform as the result of U.S. policy serves more to undermine it than to facilitate its spread.

The moral posturing from the United States that conservatives advocate also undermines the universal potential of democratic ideals and human rights. The example of the Iranian people forcing democratic change on their own, without moral preening coming from the United States, reinforces the universality of democratic ideals and provides an example for aspiring democrats elsewhere in the region. Rather than having to rebut false charges that democracy is an alien, “Western” concept, local reformers can point to the Iranian example that democratic aspirations are universal and indigenous.

By framing American concerns over Iran’s election and the resulting protests in the language of both universal human rights and national self-determination, the Obama administration has thus far managed to thread a very difficult needle without undermining the efforts of pro-democracy protesters. As the situation on the ground in Iran develops, so too should the Obama administration’s response. If pro-democracy opposition leaders call for more vocal American support, they should receive it. If the ruling elite engage in a bloody, Tiananmen-style crack down, it should receive the full measure of repudiation and outrage from the United States and its government.

But until then, President Obama’s caution and framing of the protests in terms of universal democratic values is the right way to go.