Some conservatives want a change in the law that would give immigrant children the right to an education

BOSTON (AP) — Last year at a sparsely attended meeting, the Saugus Public School Committee approved a new admissions policy aimed at streamlining the process of enrolling students.

But critics say the policy — which includes strict requests for proof of “legal” residence and “criminal and civil penalties” for violators — has a different purpose: to keep immigrants out of the small school district outside Boston.

The debate over welcoming immigrant children to America’s schools extends far beyond Boston’s suburbs. Advocates fear this could become more prominent on the national agenda if Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.

Conservative politicians in states including Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee are questioning whether immigrants without legal residency should have the right to public education, raising the possibility that another landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision could be challenged.

For decades, children from families living in the country illegally have had the right to attend public school, based on a 1982 Supreme Court ruling known as Plyler v. Doe. In a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny children an education based on their immigration status.

The new Saugus policy requires new students to share immigration information and states that children must be “legal residents whose actual place of residence is in Saugus,” where the share of students learning English has nearly tripled in the past decade to 31%. Families must also complete a census, sign a declaration of residency and provide residence and identity documents.

Civil rights advocates say the requirements are onerous and violate federal law because they disproportionately harm students from immigrant families, who may not have the required documents regardless of whether they are legally living in the country.

Saugus School Committee Chairman Vincent Serino said at the meeting that the policy “tightens” existing residency rules and is not intended to keep immigrants out.

But one Nicaraguan woman said it took her six months to register her 8-year-old child because of document requirements. The woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear her child would face retaliation, said the city would not accept her lease and her complaints to the school were dismissed.

The growing efforts to undermine Plyler v. Doe must be taken seriously, immigration experts say, pointing to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn long-standing legal precedent, particularly on abortion rights and positive discrimination in higher education.

Trump, a Republican, has made immigration a central part of his 2024 campaign and has vowed to stage the largest deportation operation in US history if elected. He calls immigrants “animals” and “murderers” and has spoken about immigrant children bringing disease into the classroom. A photo shown at a recent Trump rally showed a crowded classroom with the words “Open border = full classrooms.”

There is no doubt that immigrant populations in many communities have put pressure on schools, contributing to overcrowded classrooms and forcing teachers to adapt to large numbers of Spanish-speaking students.

But until recently, the idea of ​​denying children an education was considered “too far to the right and too far excessive,” said Tom K. Wong, director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego. “But now we see a political climate in which previously fringe policies are becoming mainstream.”

Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation urged states to pass legislation requiring public schools to charge tuition to families living in the country illegally. If this were to happen, a policy brief says, it would trigger a lawsuit that would likely cause “the Supreme Court to reconsider its ill-considered Plyler v. Doe decision.”

Over the summer, Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters announced that his office would issue guidance to districts on collecting information about the “costs and burdens” of illegal immigration to school districts.

“The federal government has failed to secure our borders. Our schools are affected by this,” said Walters.

Several school districts have pushed back, saying they will not check students’ immigration status.

“Federal law is quite clear on this issue, as it prohibits districts from asking students or their families about their immigration status or requesting documentation of their citizenship,” said Chris Payne, a spokesman for Union Public Schools in Tulsa, saying outlines a common interpretation. of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In Tennessee, a universal school voucher proposal from Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, sparked debate over whether immigrant students should be excluded. The idea appealed to many conservative members of the Legislature, but some worried the exclusion would lead to legal challenges. Ultimately, Lee abandoned his voucher proposal after several aspects of the plan failed to gain support.

The Saugus School Committee in Massachusetts approved its admissions policy at a committee meeting in August 2023, two days after Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, declared a state of emergency over the state’s migrant crisis. At the time, Healey said nearly 5,600 families — including many immigrants from Haiti and Venezuela — were living in state shelters, up from about 3,100 families the year before.

Serino, the school committee chairman, said the group began considering updating its residency policy more than a year before migrants became an issue in the state. He said the policy requires documents such as a signed statement from the landlord or a property tax bill, “simple things that everyone has.”

“We didn’t hurt anyone and no one came to us – no migrant, no parent came to us to complain about the policy,” Serino said.

Local legal advocates say the policy has been a hurdle for at least two immigrant families trying to enroll in Saugus schools. Lawyers For Civil Rights and the group Massachusetts Advocates for Children said their intervention was necessary to get the students to the school.

“The policy itself is illegal,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights. “Schools must welcome and educate (all) children from the neighborhood.”

In Texas, Republican Governor Greg Abbott said in 2022 that Plyler v. Doe should be challenged and that the federal government should pay for the public education of students who are not legal residents. He was criticized by immigrant advocates and the White House. The following year, Republican lawmakers in Texas introduced several failed bills aimed at banning noncitizen children from enrolling in public schools.

In June, the idea was also included in the Republican Party of Texas platform.

The party’s priorities for the upcoming legislative season include “ending all subsidies and public services, including tuition and public school enrollment, for illegal aliens, except for emergency medical care.”