The Saugus Public School Committee held a meeting last year where they approved a new admissions policy. The purpose of this policy was to streamline the process of enrolling students. However, the meeting was sparsely attended.
But critics argue that the policy has an ulterior motive: to prevent immigrants from entering the small school district outside Boston. They claim that the policy’s strict requirements for proof of legal residency and the threat of criminal and civil penalties for violators are designed to discourage immigrants from enrolling in the district.
Advocates are concerned that the discussion surrounding the inclusion of immigrant children in American schools goes beyond just the Boston suburbs. They worry that if Donald Trump is re-elected for a second term in the White House, this issue could become even more prominent on a national level.
Conservative politicians from states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee are currently challenging the notion of granting immigrants without legal residency the right to a public education. This debate raises the potential for new challenges to a significant U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Decades ago, a landmark Supreme Court decision known as Plyler v. Doe granted children of families living in the country illegally the right to attend public school. This ruling, made in a 5-4 vote, deemed it unconstitutional to deny children an education solely based on their immigration status.
The Saugus school district has implemented a new policy that mandates new students to provide their immigration records. Additionally, the policy states that children must be legal residents and their actual residence should be in Saugus.
This new requirement comes as the number of students learning English in the district has significantly increased by almost three times in the last ten years, reaching a rate of 31%.
In order to establish residency, families are also required to complete a town census, sign a residency statement, and provide necessary occupancy and identity documents.
According to civil rights attorneys, the requirements are burdensome and go against federal law as they unfairly impact students from immigrant families. These students may not have all the necessary documents, irrespective of their legal status in the country.
Immigrant populations have undeniably put a strain on schools in numerous communities, resulting in crowded classrooms and necessitating teachers to accommodate a significant number of Spanish-speaking students.
According to Tom K. Wong, director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego, denying children an education was once considered too extreme and far-right. However, the political landscape has shifted, and what was once considered fringe policies are now becoming more mainstream.
Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, called on states to implement legislation that would require public schools to charge tuition to families living in the country illegally. Their aim was to instigate a lawsuit that could potentially prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in the Plyler v. Doe case, which they believe was made without careful consideration.
During the summer, Ryan Walters, the education superintendent of Oklahoma, made an announcement stating that his agency would provide guidance to districts on how to collect data regarding the expenses and challenges associated with illegal immigration for school districts.
According to Walters, the federal government has not been successful in securing our borders, which has resulted in negative consequences for our schools. Some school districts have responded by affirming that they will not inquire about the immigration status of their students.
According to Chris Payne, a spokesperson for Union Public Schools in Tulsa, federal law clearly prohibits districts from inquiring about students’ immigration status or requesting documentation of their citizenship. This interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling emphasizes the importance of respecting students’ rights in this matter.
In Tennessee, Governor Bill Lee, a Republican, sparked a debate with his proposal for universal school vouchers. The proposal garnered support from conservative members of the Legislature, but concerns arose regarding the exclusion of immigrant students and the potential legal challenges it could trigger. As a result, Lee decided to abandon his voucher proposal after encountering a lack of support for various aspects of the plan.
The admissions policy of the Saugus school committee in Massachusetts was approved during a committee meeting in August 2023, just two days after Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, declared a state of emergency due to the migrant crisis in the state.
Governor Healey stated that there were nearly 5,600 families, including immigrants from Haiti and Venezuela, residing in state shelters, which was an increase from the previous year’s count of about 3,100 families.
According to Serino, the chairman of the school committee, the group had already started considering revising its residency policy over a year prior to migrants becoming a concern in the state. He explained that the policy necessitates basic documents such as a signed landlord affidavit or property tax bill, which are commonly accessible to everyone.
According to Serino, no complaints have been received from migrants or parents regarding the policy, and there has been no harm caused to anyone. In 2022, Republican Governor Greg Abbott of Texas expressed his belief that Plyler v. Doe should be questioned and that the federal government should bear the financial responsibility for the education of non-legal resident students.
However, this stance faced criticism from immigrant advocates as well as the White House. Subsequently, in the following year, Texas Republican lawmakers introduced multiple bills with the goal of restricting the enrollment of non-citizen children in public schools. Despite their efforts, these bills did not succeed.
The Republican Party of Texas platform in June also included the idea. The party has set its priorities for the upcoming Legislative season, which involve discontinuing all subsidies and public services for illegal aliens. This includes in-state college tuition and enrollment in public schools, with the exception of emergency medical care.