Our nation was founded on principles that support legal immigration. All immigrants should learn and embrace American culture and values. Those who come to our shores should uphold American ideals and support our Constitution and laws of the United States.
The federal government regulates U.S. immigration policy, with Congress having the ultimate authority. The Executive Branch, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, enforces these laws but has faced criticism for its performance. The federal government is essential for securing our borders.
In the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe [ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/ ] , the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny undocumented children access to free public education. This decision arose from a Texas law that denied funding for their education and allowed local districts to refuse enrollment. The Court found that such a denial based on immigration status violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, undocumented children have the same right to attend public schools as citizens, and this ruling affects all states, including Tennessee.
Tennessee’s General Assembly is reviewing legislation, SB0836/HB0793, that challenges Plyler v. DOE. The House version allows school districts to check a child’s immigration status for enrollment, while the Senate version requires checking every student’s status and demands proof of U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status. If the state is serious about the legislation, it must cover the cost to enforce it and defend districts if they face lawsuits. The bill’s impact on school funding and the costs of educating undocumented children in Tennessee is still unclear. The state should also bear the cost of any loss of funding.
Transitioning from an initial trial to the Supreme Court incurs various costs, including filing fees, court expenses, and attorney fees. While the Supreme Court generally does not charge filing fees for most cases, legal representation and preparation can be expensive, potentially reaching millions—even if victorious. This issue would escalate to federal courts and possibly the Supreme Court, burdening local communities with legal costs.
Interestingly, even the dissenting opinion in Plyler suggested that denying education to undocumented children is unreasonable, noting that the long-term costs of excluding them could outweigh the expenses of providing an education. If the state wishes to challenge this ruling, it should be prepared to shoulder all financial implications. Public schools can overcome challenges, but personnel involved in student enrollment face significant constraints.
Since the 1982 Plyler ruling, various states and localities have attempted to implement measures that breach the spirit of the decision. For example:
- In 1994, California’s Proposition 187 sought to stop public schools from enrolling students who were not legally present in the U.S. and required reporting to immigration authorities. It was later overturned in federal court for violating Plyler v. DOE.
- In 2006, a school district in Elmwood Park, Illinois, initially denied a student’s enrollment due to an overstayed tourist visa but reversed its decision after intervention from the Illinois State Board of Education.
- In 2011, Alabama passed a law mandating school administrators to verify the immigration status of all new students and report this annually. A federal appellate court later halted the law’s implementation, and it was ultimately blocked after Alabama settled the lawsuit.
- Local school districts have created unofficial policies that bypass Plyler v. Doe by requiring immigrant students or their parents to provide Social Security numbers or additional documentation for enrollment. A 2011 letter from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice stated that students cannot be denied enrollment for lacking a Social Security number or foreign birth certificates. Additionally, the number of English as a Second Language (ESL) students does not necessarily indicate the number of undocumented students, as many legal citizens also need language assistance.
Since the Plyler decision, schools have not been able to collect or report on students’ immigration status. Disclosing this information without parental consent may violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). To receive federal funding, the Tennessee Department of Education must comply with civil rights laws like Title VI, as violations could risk over $1.1 billion in federal support for the state.
Federal policymakers need to create a practical immigration policy that secures borders and offers legal pathways to citizenship. Otherwise, ineffective policies will continue, and should this legislation pass, public education will be at the center of the immigration debate.
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a non-partisan teacher association located in Nashville, Tennessee. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the association are properly cited.
