Immigrant children today are dealing with a troubling new kind of playground bullying: the Trump administration and its supporters are working to intimidate them away from attending school.
Soon after taking office, the Trump Department of Homeland Security took a significant step by removing key limitations on immigration enforcement. For years, both Democratic and Republican administrations had upheld policies, outlined in official memoranda, that restricted immigration enforcement in what are known as sensitive locations—places like churches, hospitals, daycares, and schools. However, the day following the inauguration, these crucial protections that prevented raids and arrests were promptly abandoned by the new administration.
In response, California legislators are stepping up to strengthen the state’s defenses against the tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the federal administration. California already has laws in place prohibiting public schools from gathering immigration information about students and their families. In December, state lawmakers introduced new bills requiring schools and daycares to refuse ICE entry unless they have a judicial warrant. Another proposal, introduced in late January, aims to use schools’ emergency alert systems to warn students and parents of the presence of immigration officers.
While these state laws can undoubtedly slow down ICE, they unfortunately can’t override federal law. Even when entry is denied, ICE could simply wait in schoolyards or proceed with raids during events like football games. As estimated by the Migration Policy Institute, around 5 million children in the U.S. live with at least one undocumented parent, potentially turning school drop-offs into starting points for deportations. It’s not to suggest that the Trump administration could or should even attempt to gather the immense amount of money needed for widespread immigration arrests.
Ending the “sensitive locations” policy seems unnecessary. When questioned about the wisdom behind ICE effectively terrorizing children in schools, Vice President JD Vance resorted to suggesting the exaggerated threat of a “violent murderer in a school.” Yet, the previous policy already gave ICE the ability to make arrests in schools during emergencies or when there were no other alternatives available.
So, what’s the real objective? Largely, it’s about putting on a tough front and instilling fear among immigrant communities. A part of this strategy might even be aimed at encouraging self-deportation.
Even before Homeland Security’s recent moves, some state and local entities were already leading the way in attempts to intimidate. For instance, Saugus, Massachusetts’ school district started requiring proof that new students were legal residents. Meanwhile, the Oklahoma State Board of Education decided that parents and legal guardians must show proof of their citizenship when signing up their children for school. These demands might sound familiar to Californians, likening back to Proposition 187. This 1994 Republican-backed ballot measure, which was instrumental in eroding the GOP’s influence in California, also centered around heightened surveillance and restrictions on immigrant education.
Proposition 187 didn’t withstand legal challenges. Similarly, a comparable law in Alabama from 2012 was also defeated. Both challenges relied on the precedent set by Plyler v. Doe—a 1982 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the constitutional right to equal access to public education regardless of immigration status.
However, with a current Supreme Court that has already shown its readiness to overturn longstanding precedents, including the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, conservatives have renewed efforts to revisit these issues. The Heritage Foundation is encouraging other states and districts to follow Oklahoma’s and Saugus’ example, with aspirations of having the Supreme Court reevaluate Plyler.
Oklahoma’s school superintendent, Ryan Walters, presents his opposition to immigrant children and “sanctuary schools” through an economic lens. He has called for federal funds to reimburse the costs of educating immigrant children.
The Plyler decision, however, dismissed such reasoning. In that case, Texas had argued that the financial strain from immigrant schoolchildren stretched its resources too thin. The court countered by highlighting that unauthorized immigrants contribute through labor to the local economy and taxes to the state. Additionally, it noted the savings Texas sought were insignificant compared to the profound costs imposed on children, the state, and the nation by creating a class of illiterates within its borders.
The principles upheld in Plyler are as relevant today as they were four decades ago. Moreover, it isn’t just courts that can advocate for students. California legislators should move forward with legislation aimed at bolstering protections against ICE’s encroachment on schools. Local schools can also play a key role in safeguarding their communities. The Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, has plans for mandatory teacher training and intends to provide “know your rights” cards to parents. While these initiatives can’t offer full protection against school-site arrests, they equip school staff and families with the necessary tools to stand firm for themselves and their communities.
Educational leaders have a duty to speak up as well. California’s former Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, appointed by three different Republican governors, had raised concerns during Trump’s initial administration that ICE agents “stalking” courthouses were instilling fear in victims and witnesses, thereby endangering the justice system. We need similar outcries from school leaders whenever public education is at risk.
Surveillance and intimidation are detrimental to children’s education. When schools lose their aura of safety, attendance drops, and so does the quality of learning. Children, whether native-born or newcomers, shouldn’t be sacrificed to reckless immigration enforcement. It’s essential for states and local entities to uphold their constitutional and moral obligations to educate all students, even if that means standing up to the president.
Shayak Sarkar is a law professor at UC Davis. Josh Rosenthal is a lawyer based in Los Angeles who represents local governments, immigrants, and unions.
