海角大神

What are immigrant children鈥檚 rights to a public education? Pressure grows for restrictions.

U.S. states can鈥檛 bar immigrant children 鈥� no matter their status 鈥� from attending public school. The Supreme Court said so in 1982.

A growing chorus of Republicans wants to overturn that decision. Bills in state legislatures over the past year have unsuccessfully aimed to collect data on immigrant students without legal status or charge them tuition. Passing that sort of legislation could put the issue back in front of the Supreme Court someday.

鈥淚t鈥檚 time for it to go,鈥� Rep. Chip Roy, who鈥檚 also running in the Republican primary for Texas attorney general, said of the court ruling during a congressional hearing in March. 鈥淎ny amount of illegal immigration in our hospitals, jails, schools, or elsewhere should not be tolerated. ... States should have the ability to curb it.鈥�

Critics of the landmark decision 鈥� Plyler v. Doe 鈥� say that educating unauthorized immigrant children is expensive and that cash-strapped school districts should focus limited resources on American kids. Immigrant advocates say children who entered the United States illegally deserve the same access to schools as their American-born peers, arguing that free education helps shield against poverty.

The debate continues as the Trump administration expands its deportation effort, arresting and urging unauthorized residents to 鈥渟elf-deport鈥� while moving to strip protections from immigrants lawfully here. The government has lifted limits on immigrant arrests at or near schools and in April argued in front of the Supreme Court that it was time to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. The Justice Department is also suing states that offer in-state tuition rates for college students without lawful status.

An estimated 14 million unauthorized immigrants live, work, and study in the United States. Yet the Plyler decision that for decades has protected unauthorized immigrant children who attend public school 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 assert emphatically that education is a fundamental right 鈥� even if we do treat it that way,鈥� says Iv贸n Padilla-Rodr铆guez, assistant professor of history at the University of Illinois Chicago.

What did the ruling establish?

Students, no matter their immigration status, can attend K-12 public schools for free.

The Plyler case involved a 1975 Texas law that withheld funding for students who weren鈥檛 lawfully admitted to the U.S. and also allowed districts to deny them enrollment. (Based on that law, a district charged such students tuition to enroll.) In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the Texas statute violated the 14th Amendment鈥檚 equal protection clause.

鈥淚f the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders,鈥� wrote the court, that denial must advance 鈥渟ome substantial state interest.鈥�

The dissenting justices agreed that it seemed 鈥渟enseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children鈥� of an elementary education. But they also chided the court for 鈥減olicymaking鈥� to make up for congressional inaction on illegal migration.

Leading up to the 1975 Texas statute, Mexicans had lost legal paths to enter the United States, says Dr. Padilla-Rodr铆guez, who鈥檚 writing a book about migrant children and education. A decade prior, Congress had ended a program for temporary farmworkers and imposed a new cap on Mexican entries. Some American school officials at the time acknowledged calling the Border Patrol when they suspected a student lacking lawful status was trying to enroll, she says.

Some border communities saw the increase in unauthorized immigrant students as both a fiscal and existential threat, she says. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a long history of seeing nonwhite kids entering schools as threatening the racial purity of school.鈥�

Where do things stand now?

The full scope of immigrant-student enrollment in public schools is hard to pin down, because schools don鈥檛 typically collect that data directly.

That said, around 1 in 10 public school students were English language learners as of 2021, according to the government鈥檚 most recent data. But that count includes U.S. citizens, who make up the majority of public school students with limited English, an analysis of 2016 survey data found.

The Trump administration has chipped away at their access. Last year, the Department of Education rescinded guidance that asked schools to accommodate English learners, reports The Washington Post.

Under the Biden administration, surges in legal and illegal immigration brought foreign-born students to districts in interior states such as Colorado and Ohio, where budgets and classrooms weren鈥檛 prepared for so many new arrivals.

Amid President Donald Trump鈥檚 immigration crackdown now, districts across the country, from Minnesota to Maine, have reported lower attendance during arrest campaigns.

Why keep these kids out of school?

Researchers estimate that unauthorized immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars in federal income and payroll taxes. Still, conservatives argue that free education for students who lack permission to be in the country siphons public resources away from citizens and others lawfully present.

At The Heritage Foundation, Lora Ries calls for charging unauthorized students the cost of their attendance. The former Homeland Security official urges all states to challenge what she considers flawed case law.

The Plyler decision was 鈥減olicy-based, it was emotion-based, and we鈥檝e also had changed circumstances since that decision came out,鈥� says Ms. Ries, director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at Heritage. Since 1982, she counts an influx of unaccompanied minors and more restrictions on public benefits as critical developments that the court that decided Plyler didn鈥檛 foresee.

Yet overturning the 44-year-old case has 鈥渘o prospect,鈥� says Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented students鈥� families in Plyler. Past attempts by California and Alabama to challenge the Supreme Court precedent failed, he notes.

If an anti-Plyler law were implemented now, says Mr. Saenz, 鈥渟ome of the people who are clamoring the loudest to do that would be first to complain.鈥� That鈥檚 because excluding kids from school means more 鈥渆nd up on the streets and sidewalks in the middle of the day,鈥� he says. 鈥淭heir constituents won鈥檛 like that very much.鈥�