Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Undocumented Students and Education: Rights, Risks, and What’s Changing

News

Undocumented Students and Education: Rights, Risks, and What’s Changing
People are protesting for immigrants' rights.
Photo by Jason Leung on Unsplash

The state of educational rights for undocumented people has been a longstanding policy dilemma that continues to have an uncertain trajectory. Its legal beginnings emerged in 1982, when the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe ruled against the state of Texas Education Code Section 21.031, which would have allowed school districts to deny undocumented students enrollment in K-12 public schools. In its decision, the Court noted that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens, regardless of lawful status.

As for postsecondary education, section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 prohibits undocumented people from receiving in-state tuition. In addition, federal loan applications that require Social Security Numbers for eligibility—outlined on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) website—render federal aid inaccessible to undocumented students, who might consequently avoid higher education or, in some cases, risk deportation after applying for aid.


Policies Affecting Undocumented Students

Multiple new policies have emerged in the past two years that may influence how undocumented students navigate the education system. Four such policies are outlined below:

  • Executive Order 14160 (January 2025 – Ongoing): Signed by President Donald Trump, the EO attempts to limit access to birthright citizenship, suggesting that individuals born to undocumented parents are not “subjected to the jurisdiction [of the United States],” but rather the country in which their parents have citizenship. The Order has been challenged in court.
  • Tennessee H.B. 793 (January – October 2025): Introduced by Republican House Majority Leader William Lamberth, the bill allows Local Education Agencies (LEA) and public charter schools to refuse enrollment for children or parents who lack legal documentation. However, schools would have to offer undocumented families the option to pay tuition out of pocket before refusal. The bill passed in the House Education Administration Committee and the House Government Operations Committee, causing mass protests, but eventually failed to move forward for the 2025 legislative session.
  • H.B. 210 (February – May 2024): Introduced by Republican Representative Reed Ingram of Alabama, the bill proposed a new criterion for undocumented people seeking postsecondary education. Under the bill, three years of high school, an earned high school diploma or GED, and an application for legal status would be required to attend Alabama public colleges and universities. The bill passed in the House, 89-10 but died in the Senate.

Arguments in Favor of Equal Education Access for Undocumented Students

Increased Pathways to Legal Status

Proponents of education access for undocumented people argue that education is a key pathway to legal status, and advocate for bills that allow young immigrants to attend school. They point to proposed policies like the 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act and 2021 United States Citizenship Act, which would have granted legal status to those who have completed certain educational milestones, such as high school or the first two years of college, in the United States.

While these sweeping immigration bills failed to pass, they indicate the importance that education holds in lawmakers’ perspective of what qualifies an individual for protective status. Other policies, such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which provides temporary protection status for children who entered the country illegally, have had significant impacts. Data from the 2024 Center for American Progress survey report shows 62.8 percent of DACA recipients completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. The report also found 94.9 percent of DACA holders were employed or in school. Without such measures for undocumented people to have education, those in favor argue that legalization becomes increasingly difficult.

Economic Benefits and Upward Mobility

Postsecondary education also offers access to higher-paying jobs, which offer upward mobility for undocumented people and bolster the economy. Due to their lack of legal status, many undocumented people in the United States have little choice in their career paths, and work low-wage jobs that not only limit their economic mobility but also put them at risk of exploitation. Given the high incidence of labor rights violations targeted at undocumented workers, including child labor and modern-day slavery, advocates say education is a pathway toward more formalized workplaces with better protections. Cases of worker exploitation often go unreported due to fears of deportation. Without a secure pathway to higher earnings, advocates say, this cycle continues.

Equal Entitlement to Public Education

Finally, proponents highlight that undocumented migrants pay billions in taxes every year, and thus argue that they deserve the same access to public education as other taxpayers. A July 2024 report from The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocumented people paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Nearly half of these taxes funded programs that undocumented people do not qualify for, such as Social Security and Medicare. As a result of such significant economic contributions, advocacy groups like the American Immigration Council call for an end to these restrictive educational policies.

Arguments Against Equal Education Access for Undocumented Students

Unethical to Offer Public Benefits to Illegal Immigrants

Unlawful migration is classified as a civil offense under federal law (8 U.S.C. 1325), and some believe it is irrational to give federal offenders equal educational opportunities. Because of this, think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation argue, “America is a nation of laws, not of men, and thus her citizens must abide by the rule of law.” They reference the constitutional rights of Congress to establish legislation (Article 1, Section 8), arguing they justify prohibiting those who violate federal law from being afforded the same benefits as lawful citizens. This would include in-state tuition restrictions for undocumented people under the IIRAIRA.

Increased Cost Burden on Public Schools

Concerns with costs fuel the complexities of their educational rights. Former Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters’ lawsuit against the federal government demanded $474.9 million to cover the financial burdens of immigrant students. Walters asserted that expenses for bilingual teachers, capacity building, increased lunches, and transportation were unfair to Oklahoma schools. He also proposed requiring proof of legal status in K-12 public schools to assess the future costs of having undocumented student enrollments, although it conflicts with the Plyler v. Doe ruling. Additional instances of overcrowding in New York City classrooms have led some to argue that educational institutions serving undocumented students are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a threat to national security.

Risk of Incentivizing Illegal Entry

Last, critics point to the issue of incentivizing illegal immigration. Opponents of equal education access worry that allowing equitable education for undocumented migrants will create an incentive for more to cross the border. They point to research that indicates that undocumented people tend to settle in states that have flexible or in-state tuition availability for those without proper legal status. In 2024 alone, approximately 622,000 unlawful noncitizens crossed the United States-Mexico border. With rising migrant arrivals and strained resources, ensuring fair access to education is not a priority for those who worry that the U.S. and its public benefits are already at capacity.

Conclusion

Despite various challenges, Plyler v. Doe remains the law of the land, allowing undocumented students to receive equal access to public K-12 education. However, the long-term sustainability of the ruling remains uncertain, as it is beginning to clash with executive orders and state proposals in modern times. As political polarization, economic pressures, and ethical concerns continue to shape undocumented students’ educational rights, legislators, impacted communities, and legal experts will need to follow these developments closely. The direction of future immigration policy on education remains uncertain.

Nhelia Alemo is a Congolese-American and first-generation pre-law student at the University of Iowa.


Read More

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less