BOSTON — Last year, the Saugus Public School Committee approved a new admissions policy aimed at simplifying student enrollment. However, critics argue that this policy, which imposes strict proof of “legal” residency and introduces “criminal and civil penalties” for non-compliance, seeks to exclude immigrant families from the district.
The discussion around immigrant children’s access to education extends beyond the Boston suburbs. Advocates worry that this issue may gain more attention nationally, especially if Donald Trump secures a second term as President.
Conservative leaders in states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee are questioning whether undocumented immigrants should have access to public education, potentially challenging the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe. This 1982 ruling established that denying education to children based on immigration status is unconstitutional.
Saugus’s new policy mandates that new students provide immigration records and proves their residency in the district. The policy states that children must be “legal residents” of Saugus, where the number of students learning English has surged to 31% over the last decade. Families are also required to complete a town census, sign a residency statement, and provide occupancy and identification documents.
Civil rights advocates argue that these requirements are burdensome and disproportionately impact immigrant families, who may not have the necessary documentation, regardless of their legal status.
Vincent Serino, chairman of the Saugus School Committee, stated that the policy aims to clarify existing residency rules, asserting that it is not meant to exclude immigrants. However, one Nicaraguan mother reported that it took her six months to enroll her 8-year-old child due to these document requirements. Speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, she noted that the town rejected her lease as proof of residency, and her concerns to the school were ignored.
Immigration experts warn that efforts to undermine Plyler v. Doe should not be dismissed. They point to the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court, which has shown a willingness to overturn established legal precedents, as seen with decisions on abortion rights and affirmative action in education.
Trump has made immigration a key focus of his 2024 campaign, promising the largest deportation operation in U.S. history if elected. He has referred to immigrants using derogatory terms and has falsely claimed that they bring diseases into schools. A recent Trump rally featured a photo of a crowded classroom accompanied by the slogan “Open border = packed classrooms.”
While it’s acknowledged that growing immigrant populations can strain schools and contribute to overcrowded classrooms, Tom K. Wong, director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at UC San Diego, points out that proposals to deny education to children would have previously been seen as extreme. “Now, we are witnessing a shift where once-fringe policies are becoming mainstream,” he said.
Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation encouraged states to implement tuition fees for families living in the U.S. illegally. They suggested this could provoke a lawsuit that might prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider the Plyler v. Doe ruling.
Oklahoma’s education superintendent, Ryan Walters, has announced plans to provide guidance on the “costs and burdens” of illegal immigration on schools, stating, “The federal government has failed to secure our borders. Our schools are suffering because of this.”
In contrast, several school districts have resisted these measures, asserting they will not check students’ immigration statuses. Chris Payne, a spokesperson for Union Public Schools in Tulsa, noted that federal law prohibits districts from inquiring about students’ immigration status or demanding citizenship documentation.
In Tennessee, a proposal for universal school vouchers led to a debate about excluding immigrant students. Although many conservative lawmakers supported the idea, concerns over potential legal challenges led Governor Bill Lee to abandon the proposal after parts of it failed to gain traction.
The Saugus School Committee approved its new admissions policy during a meeting in August 2023, shortly after Governor Maura Healey declared a state of emergency over the state’s migrant crisis. At that time, Healey reported that nearly 5,600 families, primarily immigrants from Haiti and Venezuela, were living in state shelters, up from about 3,100 the previous year.
Serino asserted that the committee began reviewing its residency policy well before the migrant issue emerged. He described the required documents as “simple stuff that everyone has” and claimed that no one, including migrants or parents, has complained about the policy.
However, local legal advocates have indicated that the policy has hindered at least two immigrant families trying to enroll in Saugus schools. The organizations Lawyers For Civil Rights and Massachusetts Advocates for Children intervened to help these students gain access to education.
“The policy itself is illegal,” stated Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights. “Schools should be welcoming all children in the district and educating them.”
In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott expressed in 2022 that Plyler v. Doe should be challenged and that the federal government should cover the costs of educating students without legal residency. His remarks sparked backlash from immigrant advocates and the White House. The following year, Republican lawmakers introduced several unsuccessful bills aimed at restricting non-citizen children from enrolling in public schools.
In June, the Texas Republican Party platform also included a call to “end all subsidies and public services, including in-state college tuition and enrollment in public schools, for illegal aliens, except for emergency medical care.”
You Might Be Interested In