BOSTON — During a meeting in the previous year that saw limited attendance, the Saugus Public School Committee endorsed a new admissions policy, intending to simplify the enrollment process for students.
However, critics argue that the policy, which demands extensive proof of “legal” residency and outlines “criminal and civil penalties” for those who do not comply, seeks to deter immigrants from enrolling in the school district located just outside of Boston.
The discourse surrounding the acceptance of immigrant children in the educational system transcends the Boston area, as advocates worry that it may gain traction on a national level, particularly if Donald Trump secures a second term in office.
Conservative legislators in states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee are challenging the notion that undocumented immigrants should receive public education, raising the potential of revisiting a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, decided in a close 5-4 vote, established the unconstitutionality of denying educational access to children based on their immigration status.
The revised policy in Saugus mandates that new students must provide immigration documentation and states that only “legal residents whose actual residence is in Saugus” can enroll. This follows an increase in the percentage of students learning English in Saugus schools, which has risen to 31% over the past decade. Additionally, families are required to complete a town census, submit a residency statement, and furnish various identity and occupancy documents.
Civil rights lawyers contend that these criteria create significant barriers and infringe upon federal laws by disproportionately affecting students from immigrant households, many of whom may not possess the necessary documents, regardless of their legal status.
Vincent Serino, the chairman of the Saugus school committee, described the policy as a “tightening up” of existing residency rules and insisted that it was not designed to exclude immigrants.
Nonetheless, a Nicaraguan mother recounted her experience, stating that it took her six months to enroll her 8-year-old child due to the extensive documentation requirements. Staying anonymous to safeguard her child from potential backlash, she noted that her lease was rejected by the town and that her concerns went unaddressed by the school.
Experts on immigration advise taking the threats against Plyler v. Doe seriously, pointing out the current Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn long-established legal precedents, especially regarding abortion rights and affirmative action in higher education.
Trump has made immigration a centerpiece of his campaign for the 2024 election, pledging to execute the largest deportation campaign in American history if he is re-elected, referring to immigrants in derogatory terms and suggesting that immigrant children pose health risks in educational settings.
Concerns about overcrowded classrooms due to rising immigrant populations are valid, and educators are adapting to accommodate a growing number of Spanish-speaking students.
Nonetheless, Tom K. Wong of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center noted that previously extreme ideas about denying education to children would have been considered extreme but are now gaining a foothold in political discussions.
The conservative Heritage Foundation recently encouraged states to create laws mandating that public schools charge tuition for families without legal residency, asserting that it would spark a legal challenge that may compel the Supreme Court to revisit the Plyler v. Doe ruling.
Oklahoma’s education superintendent, Ryan Walters, recently announced plans to provide guidance on assessing the costs and impacts of illegal immigration on school districts, insisting that the failure of the federal government to secure borders has burdened schools.
Several school districts have resisted these initiatives, stating they will not enforce checks on students’ immigration statuses. Chris Payne, a spokesperson for Union Public Schools in Tulsa, pointed out that federal law prohibits districts from inquiring about a student’s immigration status or citizenship documentation.
In Tennessee, a debate spurred by a proposed universal school voucher program by Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, raised questions on whether immigrant students should be excluded. While the proposal was appealing to conservative legislators, concerns over potential legal ramifications emerged, leading Lee to abandon the initiative.
The policy was approved by the Saugus school committee in August 2023, shortly after Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey declared a state of emergency due to the migrant situation in the state. Healey reported that nearly 5,600 families were residing in state shelters, a significant increase from the previous year’s figure of about 3,100 families.
Serino defended the committee’s actions, claiming that the policy was updated well before the issue of migration gained prominence in Massachusetts, asserting that the required documents are straightforward and commonly held by residents.
Legal advocates have suggested that the policy poses barriers for at least two immigrant families attempting to enroll in Saugus schools, with organizations like Lawyers For Civil Rights and Massachusetts Advocates for Children intervening to facilitate their admission.
“The policy itself is illegal,” asserted Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights. “Schools should be welcoming to all children who reside in the district and provide them with education.”
In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has also expressed intentions to challenge Plyler v. Doe, asserting that the federal government should finance the public education of undocumented students. This stance resulted in backlash from activist groups and the federal government. Following this, Texas lawmakers proposed several unsuccessful bills aimed at restricting non-citizen children from enrolling in public schools.
Recently, this contentious issue has been incorporated into the Texas Republican Party’s platform, which prioritizes ending all public services and benefits for undocumented individuals, aside from emergency medical care.