Your reply is deceptive and wrongly leading. Go to the blackboard and diagram this:
“You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship. But whether border security is a condition precedent, which it would be in my case, is a very important distinction”.
The clause “which it would be in my case” refers to “whether border security is a condition precedent” and not to the part you underlined.
Either your understanding of English is flawed or you intended to deceive just to make a silly point on FR.
it is clear he wanted viewer to take away that citizenship was OK with him as long as the border was first(before any legalization too) Trey: 'You can agree on a path to legalization or citizenship'. This is the type of lawyer words Rubio was using.
His only disagreement with Rubio on that show was that the Senate bill failed to live up to that,.
Now maybe he has a enough poison pills to kill that bill, if so good.