I really must object to this. We can disagree on policy. But there needs to be a policy or economic reason for our action.

Our bill is based on "compassion" is not a policy position. It also has no limiting principle. If "everyone deserves a chance to be who God wanted" or what ever the actual quote, is a reason for a policy we should turn over the nation's treasure to Somalia and Ethiopia (or at least fly the people over to the US). Don't they deserve compassion and a chance to be what god wanted?

 First, noting that it would take at least four years to secure the border, “We cannot wait another four years with 11 million people living in this country illegally without knowing who they are or why they’re here."

I am not completely sure that the border security from Regan's reforms ever got fully implemented. The Fence that Congress passed and funded has not been completed. Securing the border might not take over 4 years if we actually tried to do it.

We have not known who these 11 Million people are since 1986. I would like to hear the why. Why can't we wait another 4 years to know who these people are? If it was actually a National Security concern we would have enforced the border already and learned who these people were already.

Sen. McCain is pushing for this stuff. He went on a secret trip to Libya and got his picture taken, smiling with Islamic kidnappers. So no I do not think "good" rebels really exist and I do not think we could find them.   

My understanding ( I really don't remember the major media source) is that this arming "good" rebels might have been possible at the very beginning. Since that time while the rebel groups are fractured, there is not significant group in the rebel movement that would be helpful or really even neutral to the United States.

Thank you for the update. This story needs to be followed. Ms. Attkisson's only "crime" was being a real journalist. Following the story not just supporting the administrations talking points.

What industries are you talking about?

Apparently we will not be able to easily hear how Al-Q is going to harm American interests with the weapons we give them.  

No he mentioned janitors. He also mentioned factory workers, waitresses and any other person who worked at the company.

Yes we should talk to the risk takers. But a cleaning business with bad janitors goes out of business. A restaurant with bad janitors gets closed down by the Health Department or can't get customers. Bad employees means a failed business.

 There are usually only 1-2 owners to a business .  You don't have to changes your principles at all, just relate your plan to the 50 employees not just the 2 owners.

I don't like Santorum much. But I can see his point and it is not quite what you are stating here.

I have been involved in running small businesses. (management not ownership) Employee's are willing to vote for Politicians that will raise taxes and costs on businesses and raise taxes on the owner. They have no concept that if the business/owner is giving more money to the Government that means there is less money available to give raises or hire new staff.

My read is more that the Republicans need to do more to show employees that "liberal" policies hurt them financially too, not just the business owners.

They built that company too!-- This may have been a little over the top, but in small businesses (that's what the last election was harping on) success or failure may easily be determined by the people you can get to work for you.

I like this idea the best.  Seriously we are not helped by either side winning. When two groups that do not like you fight each other, you don't arm one side. You stay out of the way.

Thanks for the clip. The Immigration debate has really soured me on Rubio.

Under FISA the Attorney General has certain duties. The Department of Justice brings the application for the Warrant. I can not join your faith in a system that is dependent on Eric Holder and his chief lieutenants  acting in good faith. That they will be honest with the Court and with Congress. 

I disagree that this can be separated from the Justice Department targeting journalists. Eric Holder signed a warrant for a wire tap and then told Congress he knew nothing about it (lying to Congress). The Warrant for James Rosen said that the reporter was a criminal and a flight risk. This was explained by stating the DOJ did not believe this they just had to put it in the warrant to get a judge to approve it (lying to the Court)

This makes me happy and sad. Various recent posts have dealt with Congressional Oversight. I am happy to see a Representative attempting to preform his oversight duties.

I am sad because I had generally heard good things about Mueller and he was a Republican appointee. Congress can not have effective oversight if members of the executive branch won't answer simple questions or like Louis Lerner plead the 5th.

No. Congressional Oversight did not do much with Fast and Furious. Despite supposed Congressional oversight it is my understanding that members of Congress have not been allowed to talk to the survivors of the Libya attack.  Every "scandal" that has happened took place in an Agency that theoretically had Congressional Oversight.

  Why would Oversight on this issue be any more effective than Congressional Oversight on all the other issues? 

There has been a lot of discussion about the Judicial oversight.

Rosen the Fox reporter had his phone tapped (a higher level of scrutiny than meta data). This required judicial oversight. The DOJ went judge shopping until they found a judge to approve this. The application for the tap said that Mr. Rosen was a suspected criminal and flight risk.

Current rules said Eric Holder had to sign off on the warrant. Holder did so then said he no idea this was going on. The explanation for calling Rosen a criminal that came out was that they had no intention of pressing any charges against the reporter, they just had to list him as a criminal suspect to get the phone tap approved.

Given that story that we just lived through, why do some rush to assume that since a judge is involved there is no way the system could be abused.

A news/ policy issue that everyone is talking about, that divides Republicans  and divides the Democrats, where public polling is all over the place and  where both sides can raise legitimate concerns. This all seems like the type of topic that this site, with its "civil, intelligent conversation" idea, was created to discuss.

But I suppose you could go with everyone who does not agree with me is so insane they must be heavily medicated. That seems in keeping with intelligent discussion.