In a sparsely attended meeting last year, the Saugus Public School Committee in Massachusetts approved a new admissions policy aimed at streamlining the process of enrolling students. However, critics argue that the policy, which includes stringent requirements for proof of legal residency and threats of penalties for violators, is actually intended to keep immigrants out of the small school district outside Boston. This debate over the inclusion of immigrant children in America’s schools extends beyond the Boston suburbs, with conservative politicians in states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee questioning whether immigrants without legal residency should have the right to a public education. There are concerns that this issue could gain more prominence in the national agenda if Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.
The new Saugus policy requires new students to provide immigration records and states that children must be legal residents with their actual residence in Saugus. Families are also required to complete a town census, sign a residency statement, and provide occupancy and identity documents. Civil rights attorneys argue that these requirements are burdensome and disproportionately harm students from immigrant families who may not have all the necessary documents, regardless of their legal status. While the chairman of the Saugus school committee insists the policy is about tightening existing residency rules and not keeping out immigrants, some families have reported difficulties in enrolling their children due to the document requirements.
The push to undermine the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which established the right of children of families living in the country illegally to attend public school, is growing. Experts warn that the conservative-dominated Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn longstanding legal precedent on various issues, coupled with Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, could lead to significant challenges to immigrant children’s access to education. While immigrant populations have strained schools in many communities, denying children an education based on their immigration status was previously considered too extreme but is now gaining traction in mainstream political discourse.
In response to the influx of migrants, the Saugus school committee approved its admissions policy in a meeting held in August 2023, shortly after Governor Maura Healey declared a state of emergency over the state’s migrant crisis. The policy update, according to the committee chairman, was already being considered for over a year before the migrant issue arose. Local legal advocates have criticized the policy, arguing that it has presented hurdles for immigrant families trying to enroll their children in Saugus schools and that the requirements are illegal. Similar challenges to immigrant children’s access to education have been seen in other states like Texas, where Republican lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at restricting non-citizen children from enrolling in public schools.
Efforts to challenge Plyler v. Doe and limit immigrant children’s access to public education have been met with backlash from immigrant advocates, legal advocates, and some lawmakers. While some conservative states like Oklahoma and Texas have considered implementing policies that would require tuition for families living in the country illegally, federal law prohibits districts from inquiring about students’ immigration status or requesting documentation of citizenship. The debate over immigrant children’s right to a public education is part of a broader discussion about immigration policy, education funding, and the role of the federal government in addressing these issues. Despite the challenges and controversies surrounding immigrant students’ enrollment in public schools, advocates continue to emphasize the importance of welcoming and educating all children, regardless of their immigration status, in order to promote a more inclusive and equitable society.
