SCOTUS Considers Birthright Citizenship
The 14th Amendment, established in 1868 and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court 128 years ago, grants birthright citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case that could potentially narrow or eliminate this right.
The Trump administration has argued that birthright citizenship has been applied too broadly to children of non-citizens.
Projections by the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State suggest that if this right is removed for children born on or after February 20, 2025, approximately 255,000 U.S.-born children could begin life without U.S. citizenship annually, potentially reaching 4.8 million by 2045.
Wendy Cervantes, from The Center for Law and Social Policy, states that birthright citizenship is crucial for child wellbeing, ensuring a foundation of equal opportunity for children in the U.S. K-12 public schools serve as a key access point for various services, including free meals, mental health support, and services for students with disabilities. Without citizenship, access to these services and to college could become more complex for many children.
Education Access and Immigration Status
All children, regardless of immigration status, possess the right to a free K-12 public education in the United States. This right was upheld by the landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which addressed Texas's attempt to prohibit state funding for educating children living unlawfully in the U.S. and charging tuition to foreign-born students. The Supreme Court recognized that denying a basic K-12 education would create a permanent underclass.
As a result of Plyler, school districts are not mandated to collect immigration data on students or their families.
Organizations such as the National Newcomer Network express concern that Plyler has become a target for political challenges. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has advocated for states to restrict public education for undocumented students and to directly challenge the Plyler decision, citing significant state education spending costs.
Some states, including Tennessee, are considering legislation that would track K-12 students' legal status and allow public schools to refuse enrollment to undocumented students. Similar proposals are under consideration in other states, which could lead to legal challenges and potentially re-open the question of immigrant children's right to public education.
Impact of Immigration Enforcement on School Attendance
Immigration enforcement efforts have been linked to declines in school attendance. For instance, increased federal immigration presence in Minnesota led to a 20-40% rise in absences in some districts. A study by the Hoover Institution found a 22% increase in absences in California's Central Valley after immigration raids. These findings indicate that while children legally can attend K-12 public schools, enforcement actions complicate this right.
Sophia Rodriguez, a professor of education policy at New York University, notes that immigrant families frequently report experiencing "constant fear, anxiety and stress" regarding sending their children to school due to immigration enforcement.
The potential end of birthright citizenship could exacerbate these concerns, affecting larger populations. Studies suggest a rise in local immigration enforcement can lead to fewer Hispanic students enrolling, disrupting their education and impacting school funding, which often relies on attendance and enrollment.
Students with Disabilities and Public Services
Schools often serve as the initial point of contact for immigrant families seeking public services such as nutrition programs, healthcare, language learning, and counseling. They are also crucial for identifying children's disabilities and connecting them with necessary support services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees disabled children a "Free Appropriate Public Education."
Anne Dwyer, a professor at Georgetown University, states that these protections are not contingent on immigration status. However, if immigration enforcement fears deter parents from sending their children to school, these children may lose access to essential school-provided supports. Schools utilize state and federal Medicaid funds for services like physical, speech, and occupational therapy, covering approximately half of all students with special education plans. Medicaid is generally restricted to U.S. citizens and individuals with other qualifying legal statuses.
If birthright citizenship is eliminated, U.S.-born children who would otherwise be citizens might no longer qualify for Medicaid. While schools would remain legally obligated to serve disabled children under IDEA, they would need to secure alternative funding, potentially creating significant financial burdens for school districts.
Challenges in Higher Education Access
Unlike K-12 education, the right to higher education is not universally guaranteed regardless of immigration status. Students without legal status can enroll in college but are ineligible for federal financial aid, including federal student loans and Pell Grants, which support low-income students. Caitlin Patler, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, highlights that undocumented students often come from impoverished backgrounds, making higher education financially difficult without aid.
Some states, such as Georgia and Alabama, prohibit undocumented students from attending specific public colleges, while others charge them out-of-state tuition rates. Research indicates that U.S. citizenship is directly correlated with increased educational attainment and, subsequently, stronger economic contributions throughout an individual's life.
Patler expresses concern that narrowing or eliminating birthright citizenship could result in millions of children being compelled into a "caste-like status," where their opportunities are determined by their immigration status rather than their potential.