Several states are proposing policies that could contradict the legal right of immigrant children to a free public education, raising concerns about access and privacy.
Officials in several states are pushing for policies that could potentially contradict the long-standing legal precedent guaranteeing a free public education to children regardless of their immigration status. This legal precedent, established in the Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court case, has been upheld for decades. However, recent developments suggest a possible shift in this landscape, raising concerns about the future of educational access for immigrant children.In Tennessee, state Rep.
Chris Lamberth argues that public education funds, primarily contributed by legal residents and U.S. citizens, should be used to educate children who are legally present in the country. Similarly, in Oklahoma, Superintendent Ryan Walters proposes collecting information on student immigration status, citing the need for law enforcement and resource allocation. While Walters assures that this information collection won't hinder school enrollment, critics express apprehension about the potential consequences for immigrant children and families.Legal experts warn that these policies could challenge the Plyler v. Doe ruling and expose vulnerable students to increased scrutiny and potential discrimination. They highlight the conservative makeup of the current Supreme Court, which might interpret the case differently, and the potential for states to enact legislation that threatens immigrant children's access to education. Such actions could weaken student privacy protections and create a climate of fear and uncertainty for families. Studies have already shown that heightened immigration enforcement leads to increased student absenteeism among immigrant children, as families fear potential separation and deportation
IMMIGRATION EDUCATION POLICY LAW STUDENTS
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Biden Declares Dead ERA Constitutional, Ignoring Legal Precedent and HistoryPresident Biden declares the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) part of the Constitution despite its failure to be ratified, facing criticism for disregarding legal precedent and historical facts.
Read more »
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Slams Appeals Court for Ignoring Legal PrecedentIn a strong dissent, Justice Thomas criticized the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for its handling of a case involving David Smith, an Ohio man convicted of multiple crimes. Justice Thomas argued that the court's interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was flawed and disregarded Supreme Court precedent.
Read more »
Trans community fears Trump's actions will upend legal precedent on prison protectionsOne of President Trump's first executive orders impacts transgender inmates incarcerated in federal facilities. It's just one in a series of actions signed by Trump that target the trans community.
Read more »
Red States vs. Blue States: Political Divisions Play Out at the State LevelThe article explores how political divisions between red and blue states are increasingly influencing public policy at the state level, particularly regarding immigration, abortion, education, and transgender rights.
Read more »
Red States vs. Blue States: Political Divide Plays Out in State PolicyThe political divide in the US is reflected in state policy as red states align with Trump's policies, while blue states resist. Immigration, abortion, school choice and DEI initiatives are key areas where this clash is playing out.
Read more »
Red States vs. Blue States: How Trump's Policies Will Play Out at the State LevelThis article explores the potential impact of President-elect Donald Trump's policies on state governments across the United States, highlighting the differences in approach between Republican-led 'red states' and Democratic-led 'blue states'.
Read more »