Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
"Names have meanings and shape our destinies. Research shows that they open doors and get your resume to the right eyes and you to the corner office—or not," writes Professor F. Tazeena Husain.
Getty Images, LaylaBird

Who Are the Trespassers?

Explaining cruelty to a child is difficult, especially when it comes from policy, not chance. My youngest son, just old enough to notice, asks why a boy with a backpack is crying on TV. He wonders why the police grip his father’s hand so tightly, and why the woman behind them is crying so hard she can barely walk.

Unfortunately, I tell him that sometimes people are taken away, even if they have done nothing wrong. Sometimes, rules are enforced in ways that hurt families. He seemingly nods, but I can see he’s unsure. In a child’s world, grown-ups are supposed to keep you safe, and rules are meant to protect you if you follow them. I wish I had always believed that, too.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

Protestors block traffic on Broadway as they protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Columbia University on February 05, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform Are Too Modest – Here’s a Better List

In a perfect world, Democrats would be pushing to defund ICE – the position supported by 76% of their constituents and a plurality of all U.S. adults. But this world is far from perfect.

On February 3, 21 House Democrats voted with Republicans to reopen the government and keep the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded for two weeks. Democrats allege that unless there are “dramatic changes” at DHS and “real accountability” for immigration enforcement agents, they will block funding when it expires.

Keep ReadingShow less