On the recordJune 7, 2013
That is a very interesting insight the Senator made. I believe Senator Schumer was particularly hostile to that amendment and said: Without citizenship, there is no reform. In other words, we will not agree to anything; that is absolutely nonnegotiable. I thought about that bill a lot since 2007 and have been thinking about it ever since. I believe after 1986 we gave amnesty and citizenship with the promise of enforcement, and that didn't happen. We promised it wouldn't happen again and that we wouldn't do another amnesty. This was supposed to be a one-time amnesty which wouldn't happen again. It was supposed to be the clear policy of the United States that if someone entered the country illegally, that person would not get every single thing America could provide, and we would not provide such benefits as would be provided to people who entered lawfully. I don't believe we should--and certainly are not required--to provide citizenship to somebody who entered the country unlawfully. It is just not required. I thought attacking Senator Cruz's amendment was odd and revealing as the junior Senator from Utah did. It was a surprise to me as far as the intensity of their pushback on that. I don't believe it should happen. I don't think it is the right thing. So the person would be able to get permanent, legal, resident status; participate in America; and, of course, their children would be citizens; but they can't get everything if they come illegally.…
Source
govinfo.gov




