As the elections get closer, immigration continues to dominate the political conversation.
While Republican candidate Donald Trump has been touting his mass deportation plan during the campaign trail, the Harris camp has advocated for stricter controls at the border, while running mate Tim Walz has discussed stricter controls on the rights of undocumented immigrants already in the country as well.
Amid these discussions, conservative politicians in states like Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Massachusetts have been questioning why immigrants without legal residency should have the right to a public education, raising the possibility of challenges to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court that effectively grants them access to it.
The legal precedent in question is the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which established the right of children to attend public schools regardless of their immigration status, The Associated Press recalls.
However, considering that current Supreme Court leans conservative and the fact that it did overturn landmark rulings such as Roe v. Wade in the past, immigration experts agree that growing attempts to undermine Plyler v. Doe should be taken seriously.
Figures such as Texas Governor Greg Abbott have called for a reevaluation of Plyler v. Doe, advocating that the federal government should bear the cost of educating undocumented children. "I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again," said Abbott in an interview back in 2022. "Because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler v. Doe was issued many decades ago."
The following year, Republican lawmakers in Texas introduced several unsuccessful bills aimed at limiting non-citizen children from enrolling in public schools and in June of this year, the idea also was included in the Republican Party of Texas platform.
The most recent case to put a spotlight on the issue was a new admissions policy recently approved by Saugus Public School Committee in Boston, as AP reports. The policy, initially framed as a way to streamline enrollment, requires students to provide proof of legal residency and warns of potential civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance.
The Saugus policy, which applies to a district where the number of students learning English has tripled over the past decade, requires a host of documents including town census data, proof of occupancy, and identity verification.
Although local officials claim the new policy simply "tightens" existing residency rules, critics argue that this policy, particularly its stringent documentation demands, disproportionately affects immigrant families and may be designed to exclude children of undocumented immigrants from the district's schools.
The policy has faced resistance from civil rights groups. Lawyers for Civil Rights and Massachusetts Advocates for Children have intervened on behalf of immigrant families trying to enroll their children in Saugus schools, stating that the policy violates federal law and undermines the principle that schools should be accessible to all children living in the district.
Originally published on Latin Times.
