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

Women gathered in circle.

Somali women and girls prepare for a buraanbur performance at the Tukwila Community Center on Jan. 24, 2026.

Patty Tang

As Immigration Hearings Accelerate, Somali Asylum Seekers Fear Losing Due Process

Across the Seattle region, Somali families are living with a level of fear that few others in our city fully see. This fear is rooted in sudden immigration court changes and in a national climate that feels increasingly unstable for people seeking asylum.

In recent months, immigration attorneys in multiple states, including here in Washington, have reported that Somali asylum hearings were abruptly rescheduled to earlier dates, in some cases moved forward by months or even years. Families who believed they had time to prepare are now scrambling to gather documentation, secure legal representation, and revisit traumatic experiences under compressed timelines.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person holding the U.S. flag, kneeling by a vigil.

VA hospital nurses and union members hold a memorial vigil for Alex Pretti , an ICU nurse at the VA hospital who was shot and killed by two Federal agents, February 1, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Getty Images, Andrew Lichtenstein

Should I Stay or Should I Go? When To Cut and Run On America

"If the U.S. government kills even one of our citizens for peacefully protesting, I will leave the country." Once this line was crossed, I would know that we could no longer claim to hear warning shots or catch whiffs of fascism. It will have arrived.

I said this to my therapist in November 2024 when discussing what would be the final straw for my relationship with America, the thing that would mean my family would leave this country behind.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

U.S. Customs Protection officer

Photo provided by MILN

Michigan, Romulus Challenge Federal Plan for ICE Detention Center in Ongoing Legal Fight

Michigan officials and the city of Romulus have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, escalating a growing legal and political battle over plans to convert a local warehouse into an immigration detention center near Detroit.

The lawsuit, led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and joined by the city, seeks to halt the federal government’s effort to repurpose a commercial warehouse in Romulus into a large-scale detention site operated by ICE.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court building.
Casey He

Blood or Soil? Why America is Turning Toward the 'Old World' Model

The Supreme Court heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not only for its symbolism but also for what it revealed: a direct challenge to a constitutional principle that has defined American identity for more than 150 years.

The executive order, codified as Executive Order 14160 in January 2026, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or to parents on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The administration reads “subject to the jurisdiction” narrowly. It argues that the phrase requires full political allegiance and permanent domicile, conditions that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders do not meet. The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be sweeping. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli - citizenship by place of birth - that the framers of the amendment knew and endorsed.

Keep ReadingShow less