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
You've got to do that every now and then. Even though you might get your little flak from some of the people within your conference. It's called leadership.
I think that many aspects to what the Obama administration and the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing and the race for the top that have some positive features.
I can't help but feel honored and humbled by all that has been said here. My mother would have loved it and would have believed it all. I feel totally inadequate to properly respond to much of what has been said. I thank my colleagues one…
I too am concerned about some of the costs we have had at Amtrak. In fact, the last time we passed Amtrak reform, I included a provision in that legislation to allow food to be contracted out. Up until that point, it could not even be…