The top education official in the state of Arizona opposes a recent directive from the Trump administration that allows immigration officials to target individuals who are not in the country legally, even if they are in schools. Tom Horne, the official in question, expressed concerns that parents might be afraid to send their children to school if they fear deportation. He also argued that it is not fair to punish children for being brought to the country illegally, as it is not their fault. Furthermore, Horne believes that this directive undermines a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ensures the right to education for all children, regardless of their legal status or the status of their parents.
The directive was issued by Benjamine Huffman, the acting director at the Department of Homeland Security, on Tuesday. It voided a policy enacted in 2021 that prohibited immigration law enforcement in certain “sensitive locations,” including schools. An agency spokesman stated that the directive aims to prevent criminals from hiding in schools and churches to avoid arrest, and that law enforcement should be trusted to use common sense.
This directive follows another executive order from President Trump that challenges birthright citizenship and could deny legal status to children born to parents who are not in the country legally. These children would then be subject to arrest and deportation. Horne, however, does not believe that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will start targeting schools for arrests. He argues that if anyone were to be arrested, it would be the parents and not the children. Nevertheless, Horne, who is a Republican like Trump, does not support this policy, stating that resisting the federal government would go against the supremacy clause in the Constitution.
Horne is not alone in his opposition to immigration agents operating in schools. A press aide for Democrat Kris Mayes, Richie Taylor, stated that the attorney general disagrees with ICE operating on school campuses, as well as in hospitals and churches. Taylor believes that federal immigration law can be enforced without disrupting the work of medical professionals or scaring children who are just trying to receive an education. However, Taylor does not provide clear advice on what actions school officials should take in response to immigration raids. He suggests consulting with legal counsel and communicating with parents about the possibilities.
Mayes has previously challenged the Trump administration when she believes their actions are unconstitutional or illegal. However, Taylor states that Mayes may not pursue a challenge to the new policy allowing ICE raids in previously off-limits locations, depending on how it is enforced.
Horne emphasizes the importance of the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, which established the right of all children, regardless of legal status, to receive a public education. The case originated from a 1975 Texas law that denied state funds and enrollment in public schools to students who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justice William Brennan wrote that aliens, even those present unlawfully, are considered “persons” and are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Despite this ruling, some Arizona lawmakers, such as former Senator Russell Pearce, have attempted to challenge Plyler v. Doe. Pearce proposed a measure in 2009 that would require public schools to ask parents for documents proving their children’s legal status in the country. Pearce claimed that the goal was to gather data for calculating costs to taxpayers, but he also admitted that the measure aimed to challenge the Supreme Court ruling. Although his measure cleared the Senate Education Committee, it died in the Rules Committee, which reviews legislation for constitutionality.
It remains to be seen how this new directive allowing ICE raids in schools will be enforced and whether it will face legal challenges. However, the Plyler v. Doe case set an important precedent for the rights of all children to receive an education, regardless of their legal status.