This language would allow States, on a prospective basis, if I understand it, to not be required to have to provide free education for the children of illegal immigrants. There are many States now that have a financial burden of being told by the Federal Government, 'We can't control our borders, we can't control illegal immigration into this country, but in spite of our failure, you have to provide free education.' In the State of California, I think we are talking about well over 300,000 children, at a cost to that State of $2 billion for the education of the children of illegal immigrants. Should we not allow the States to have options here?
Trent Lott: “This language would allow States, on a prospective basis, if I understand it, to not be required to have to provide free…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Gallegly immigration bill and its implications for state education funding for children of illegal immigrants.
Share
More from Trent Lott
I think one of the best infrastructure visions we could have as a country today would be to create high-speed passenger rail service that moves people economically and efficiently around the country. The irony is, as long as we continue to…
I think if they would go back to the old way of getting things done, carefully and systematically, would really help them.
I have argued we should not filibuster Federal judges. One time when I sat in that seat as majority leader, my colleagues actually voted to filibuster a judge and opposed cloture. Senator Hatch and I took to the floor and said we are not…