Undocumented Immigrant Students

Abstract

This paper presents an illustration of the positive and negative impacts on school systems that children of undocumented immigrants present as unwitting components (and, sometimes, victims) of the complex issue of immigration. Second, this paper attempts to separate the politics of the issue from the welfare of the students, assessing the advantages, disadvantages, and performance of children of undocumented immigrants while enrolled in public schools. Within this framework, the reader gains an interesting perspective on an important if under-reported part of the enormous and extremely complex issue of immigration in the twenty-first-century United States.

Overview

Countless world events and trends have caused significant increases in emigration and immigration throughout the world. War, civil conflict, natural disasters, poverty, famines, and (innocuously enough) the opportunity for better jobs have sent countless individuals and their families in search of a new life in a neighboring or distant nation.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the United States, a nation founded by immigrants, found itself in a conflicted policy situation. On one hand, a steady influx of German, Irish, and southern European immigrants filled previously vacant factory jobs, fueling a fragile pre-Depression American economy. On the other hand, the increase in foreign workers (and their families) was seen as a threat to legal residents' way of life. The policy response from legislators was to create quotas on immigration. In 1921, Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, severely curtailing the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year. Three years later, deeming the 1921 law too lenient, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924. Nearly 500,000 immigrants were denied entry into the US each year thereafter, although 150,000 to 200,000 northern and western European aliens continued to enter the country at the same time .

Although repeated attempts have been made throughout modern US history to curtail immigration and, in particular, illegal immigration, the number of those who seek to experience the American dream by leaving their home countries continues to rise. According to the Pew Research Center, there were an estimated 44.7 million immigrants in the United States as of 2015 (Cohn, 2017). Of these, an estimated 11 million people were unauthorized immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that there were about 1 million undocumented immigrants under the age of eighteen living in the United States in 2010.

With millions of undocumented immigrants, it comes as no surprise that this issue has become such a sensitive and yet salient one for nearly every facet of the American political economy. Reforming current immigration laws to govern those unauthorized migrants who are already in the country, as well as stemming the tide of those who seek to cross US borders, remains just as pivotal in the twenty-first century among political aspirants as it was nearly a hundred years ago.

What does this high number of school-aged undocumented immigrants mean for the American public school system? This question has been a focal point for education researchers, as well as a politically charged issue among pro- and anti-immigration activists. This paper takes a critical look at the issue and presents an illustration of the positive and negative impacts on school systems and public funds that children of undocumented immigrants present as unwitting components (and, sometimes, victims) of the complex issue of immigration. Second, this paper attempts to separate the politics of the issue from the welfare of the students, assessing the advantages, disadvantages, and performance of children of undocumented immigrants while enrolled in public schools. Within this framework, the reader gains an interesting perspective on an important if under-reported part of the enormous and extremely complex issue of immigration in the twenty-first-century United States.

Applications

The Many Faces of Public School. In 1975, the Texas Legislature modified its education laws in reaction to the influx of undocumented immigrants into the state. The new laws allowed the state to withhold funding for local school districts that allowed the children of undocumented immigrants to attend public education institutions. They also authorized local districts to deny enrollment for the children of people who were not "legally admitted" into the country. A class action suit was summarily filed on behalf of a group of Mexican students who claimed that under the 14th Amendment, they were entitled to equal protections and services under the law, and that the Texas laws were unconstitutional.

When the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the US Supreme Court in 1981, the plaintiffs' case was validated, albeit by a narrow majority, and a tremendously polarizing issue was borne: allowing undocumented immigrants (and their children) the right to attend US public schools. Writing for the majority, Justice William Brennan stated that regardless of an immigrant's legal status, he or she should receive protections and public services as long as they are in the nation:

“Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not 'persons within the jurisdiction' of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term” (Cornell University Law School, 2007).

Although the Supreme Court's decision cemented the rights and protections owed to all residents of the United States (whether here legally or illegally), the backlash that occurred thereafter is one that continues to divide the American public decades later.

Behind the Backlash. There are two main elements at play in explaining the public's push against allowing the children of undocumented immigrants access to public services and, in particular, public schooling. The first of these factors is the belief that undocumented immigrants are breaking the law by entering without documentation and drawing state benefits without contributing to the system. In 2003, the state of Oregon considered passage of a law that allows the children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition for state colleges if they graduate from an Oregon high school, a bill that would mirror similar laws in California, Washington, and several other states. Opposition was fierce, as is the case nationwide. A representative for one anti-undocumented immigrant group summarized the opposition: Jim Ludwick, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said of the measure, "This is a slap in the face to everyone who believes in the rule of law. No matter what you do for these people, it's not enough, they want more. The sky's the limit" ("More in-state tuition," 2003). Whether or not Mr. Ludwick's stance is entirely accurate is debatable, as undocumented immigrants cannot receive Medicaid, welfare, or food stamps; although they do frequently use hospital emergency rooms, they do pay sales and payroll taxes, and one in three pays income taxes (Mallaby, 2007). Regardless, however, the perception espoused by a percentage of the population that the government must halt benefits for undocumented immigrants remains a driving force behind opposition to allowing their children access to public schools.

The second factor is one that is not necessarily relevant to the educational needs of children. The fear of Americans losing jobs to immigrants, an issue that is centuries old, remains salient among workers. In 2007, legislative efforts to extend an exemption to the seasonal foreign worker laws (known as H-2B visas), one that allows foreign workers to return to the same job in the following year without applying for a new visa, fell short of expectations. The biggest opposition to this exemption came not from xenophobic attitudes (although such sentiments almost certainly existed as well) but from those who fear losing jobs. This position is unfounded, as the H-2B visa program requires that employers exhaust all recruitment resources for local residents before they look abroad for seasonal assistance. Interestingly, this fact plays out in industries in which undocumented workers are employed (allegedly unbeknownst to the employers) in great numbers versus more homogenous workplaces. One pundit has suggested that those who angrily denounce the presence of undocumented immigrants in the workforce as detrimental to the American worker do not work in the same areas in which foreign employees operate (Thredgold, 2006). Nevertheless, the perception that foreign workers will take American jobs, which remains a major political issue on both sides of the aisle, plays into the US population's attitudes concerning the children of undocumented immigrants.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis? Because they are denied federal services such as welfare and food stamps, and because their immigration status cannot be questioned for enrollment in public schools, it is difficult to accurately gauge how many children in the public school system are in fact from families of undocumented immigrants. Still, rough estimates can assist in painting a picture of the number as well as performance of the children of undocumented immigrants in schools. The Bell Policy Center, for example, estimated in 2006 that there are about 29,000 undocumented children aged 5 to 17 living in Colorado. If the average state funding per pupil is nearly $6,200 and each of these school-aged children were enrolled in the public system, the Center determined, then Colorado paid approximately $176 million to educate undocumented children (Jones & Baker, 2006).

Thanks to Plyler v. Doe, children of undocumented immigrants have the ability to enroll in public schools. This fact also means that school administrations are therefore not "deputized" as enforcers of immigration laws. This freedom means that backgrounds are not investigated and, unless a child makes his or her status known to the administration voluntarily, there is no way to truly determine the size of this demographic and there is no way to fully assess the performance of these children within the system. In light of the status of their parents, who are statistically likely to have poverty-level incomes, speak limited or no English, and are not likely to have advanced educational backgrounds, these children may have certain disadvantages that may hinder their progress. Still, without the ability to identify individuals within this demographic, any accurate illustration of their performance is at best limited.

In a rural Texas community, the fact that children of undocumented immigrants go unidentified caused a nightmarish scene at its 4,000-student school district. After a morning immigration raid at a meat-packing plant, school personnel became aware of the arrests only because of the hundreds of federal agents and vehicles that clogged the roads of this small town as they proceeded to the plant. The school superintendent, who suspected a federal raid, knew with absolute certainty that the incident would have repercussions at the schools. If undocumented immigrants were the target of the raid, he said, many of the students in the system would go home to find their parents missing (Lafee, 2007).

The "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law, passed in 2001, rendered this issue moot. Creating standards that pushed for yearly progress meant that state and local school systems had to implement programs for students to meet those standards, regardless of the child's status, or else face intervention or loss of funding. The law also required that fully qualified teachers must also effectively engage parents, regardless of whether they are proficient in English or not (Urban Institute, 2007).

The fact that schools are not the tools of enforcement of immigration policy and that NCLB did not discriminate among demographics in its quest to improve student performance leave systems with a simple directive: Educate all of the children within the system. As the president of one Texas town's school board succinctly states, "No matter who the child is, if they show up at our [school] door and want to be educated, we are going to offer them an education" (Karlin, 2007).

NCLB ended in December 2015 when President Barack Obama signed its successor, the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), into law. Among other changes, ESSA provides additional options for including recently arrived English learners (ELs) in assessments and mandates that states develop standardized entrance and exit procedures for identifying and reclassifying EL students. In terms of accountability, ESSA regulations require states to consider students' initial English language proficiency level or another unique student characteristic when developing targets for student progress toward English language proficiency.

President Obama also instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US by their parents temporary work permits and protection from deportation. In September 2017, nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants were in the program, when President Donald Trump announced the end of the program, with enrollee benefits expiring on March 5, 2018. Though two federal court cases may temporarily extend DACA after this date, enrollees face an uncertain future in the US, including in terms of their education.

Making the Grade. With the nation's highest constitutional interpreter having weighed in on the contentious issue of immigration and public schools, the focus now turns to how to educate newcomers in such a way that federal standards are met. Environmental factors at home, such as poverty, limited parental education, and other related elements must be addressed by means outside of the school (if governmental intervention or assistance can occur at all). Within the school walls, however, an obstacle for the children of undocumented immigrants may both be removed and at the same time serve as a target area for observation of immigrant educational performance.

As stated earlier, non-English-speaking children are already handicapped in English-only school environments. Although students in the US do not have to declare their immigration status at any time in school, a Canadian study revealed immigrant performance improvements as students seek help in English as a second language (ESL) programs as well as their status as children of legal or undocumented immigrants. The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY), performed over three survey years in the late 1990s, revealed school performance of native Canadian children (who, it is assumed, speak English and/or French), children of immigrants who speak English and/or French, and children whose parents do not speak English or French. The survey revealed a very important result: that young children whose parents do not speak English or French are placed at a significant disadvantage in grammar and vocabulary lessons when compared to natives or children whose immigrant parents speak English or French. However, as the three sets of children advanced in age, that differential was significantly narrowed, especially in math and reading testing. The conclusions to be drawn are that, as children of non-native-speaking languages are initially immersed in an Anglophone or Francophone setting, they are likely to experience a major handicap in performance. However, as they get older within the same school system, they develop just as well as their native peers (Worswick, 2004). Although the NLSCY survey does not differentiate between legal and undocumented immigrants, logic dictates that the children of undocumented immigrants, while initially at a major disadvantage upon entering the system, can in fact flourish and succeed with the proper guidance and tutelage.

Conclusion

As the truism suggests, those who do not learn from history are likely to repeat it. Throughout American history, there have been instances in which immigrants' arrivals in this country were not welcome to some. From the mid-1880s to the early twentieth century through the present, not all Americans espoused the tenets inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." The concept of the melting pot, as well as one of the best-known Latin phrases among Americans, E pluribus unum ("From many, one") is more of a novelty than a creed, convenient except when one's way of life is seemingly threatened.

The fact that there exists a large population of undocumented immigrants in this nation causes some unease among native residents and legal immigrants alike. The notion that undocumented immigrants could be using local, state, and federal services at the expense of already strapped budgets, however accurate or inaccurate, only exacerbates these anti-immigration sentiments.

It is these conceptions that give rise to drawing a proverbial line in the sand when it comes to allowing children of undocumented immigrants (most of whom were mere babies when they arrived or were born in this country after their parents arrived) entry to public schools. Of course, these anti-immigrant attitudes are not the norm among all Americans. When Texan legislators embraced public opinions that undocumented immigrants (and their children) should not be allowed to use public school resources, passing laws that deny undocumented immigrant students admittance to public schools, the American way of life pushed back. Plyler v. Doe was not an act of activism but a clear definition of legal rights and responsibilities. First, the Supreme Court ruled, children of undocumented immigrants should receive the same protections and resources afforded to any other resident. Second, whether or not a child is the offspring of undocumented immigrants is irrelevant — school administrations are not the enforcers of immigration policy, and therefore cannot investigate or deny a student based on his or her parents' legal status (this responsibility rests on the shoulders of law enforcement officials and the government that funds them).

Unfortunately, the children of undocumented immigrants continue to be caught in the middle of the multifarious "war" on illegal immigration in this country. The Texas raid described earlier in this paper was part of a multistate crackdown on one company — several other school districts were also impacted by those arrests, as thousands of undocumented workers employed at these plants had children in local schools, and although they could not (nor would not) question children's immigration status, administrators knew without a doubt that their school district contained such youths and that there would be repercussions for the student body. Still, teachers and administrators remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that each child, regardless of his or her background, receives the best education possible.

With legal matters now behind them, thanks to Plyler and the subsequent dedication of educators and school administrators, these school-aged children must now focus, as they should, on their studies. So, how are the children of undocumented immigrants doing once they enroll in school? While it is difficult to gauge performance of this segment of the student body (due to the fact that the children's family's legal status is not always evident), one can determine the capabilities of non-English-speakers in comparison to natives and English-speaking immigrants. Within this paradigm, it is a fair hypothesis that the children of undocumented immigrants, having come from homes that are at or near the poverty level with little household education, are at a severe disadvantage that is worsened by an inability to speak English. However, although this "handicap" is evident particularly among young students, those who remain in the system during their school years eventually perform just as well as those who speak English and native residents.

Adding to the good news for these youths is the fact that, regardless of the disadvantages they have, the children of undocumented immigrants are not just welcome in public schools — those who teach them have a federally mandated obligation to ensure their success. Of course, educators who acknowledge the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler understand that their job is to teach the entire student body to the best of their ability, regardless of the legal status of their parents.

Terms & Concepts

English as a Second Language: Privately or publicly funded course teaching English language skills to individuals of all ages.

No Child Left Behind: 2001 law introduced by President George W. Bush, setting standards for student performance that were tied to federal funding and incentives.

Plyler v. Doe: Landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision in which access to public school systems by children of illegal immigrants was granted.

Public School: Educational institution supported by federal, state, and local funds and presenting students with a government-approved curriculum.

Student Performance: System by which student achievement and progress is monitored and gauged, using test scores, grades, and other quantifiable methods.

Undocumented Immigrant: Individual who enters a country without a required visa, identification, or other form of authorization.

Bibliography

Cohn, D. (August 3, 2017). 5 key facts about U.S. lawful immigrants. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from Pew Research Center Fact Tank. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/03/5-key-facts-about-u-s-lawful-immigrants/

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. (2007). Supreme Court collection. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html.

Enriquez, L. E. (2011). "Because we feel the pressure and we also feel the support": Examining the educational success of undocumented immigrant Latina/o students. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 476–499. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66627449

Galindo, R. (2012). Undocumented & unafraid: The DREAM Act 5 and the public disclosure of undocumented status as a political act. Urban Review, 44, 589–611. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83589039

Jewell, M. (2012). What your undocumented-immigrant students want you to know about them. Education Week, 31, 29. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73387535

Jones, R., & Baker, R. (2006, June 30). Costs of federally mandated services to undocumented immigrants in Colorado. Bell Policy Center Issue Brief Number 4. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/IssBrf/2006/06ImmigCosts.pdf

Karlin, S. (2007). The invisible class. American School Board Journal, 194, 24–27. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26963205&site=ehost-live

Krogstad, J. M., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (February 26, 2018). Key facts about U.S. immigration policies and proposed changes. Retrieved March 7, 2018, from Pew Research Center Fact Tank. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/26/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-proposed-changes/

Lafee, S. (2007). Fighting for immigrant children's rights. School Administrator, 64, 10–16. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27141168&site=ehost-live

Mallaby, S. (2007, April 30). Lazy, job-stealing immigrants? Washington Post. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.cfr.org/publication/13216/

More in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. (2003, May 22). CNN.com. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/22/immigrant.tuition.ap/

Nguyen, C. C., & Kebede, M. (2017). Immigrant students in the Trump era: what we know and do not know. Educational Policy, 31(6), 716–742. doi:10.1177/0895904817723740. Retrieved March 7, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124739801&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2011). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, 2010. Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

Sugarman, J., & Lee, K. (2017). Facts about English learners and the NCLB/ESSA transition in California. Retrieved March 8, 2018, from Migration Policy Institute, National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/facts-about-english-learners-and-nclb-essa-transition-select-states

Sutton, L. C., & Stewart, T. J. (2013). State challenges to Plyler v. Doe: Undocumented immigrant students and public school access. Educational Considerations, 40, 23–25. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89588311

Thredgold, J. (2006). Thoughts on immigration. Enterprise/Salt Lake City, 36, 9–10.

Urban Institute. (2007). Immigration studies. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/immigration.cfm.

Worswick, C. (2004). Adaptation and inequality: Children of immigrants in Canadian schools. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37, 53–77. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12255606&site=bsi-live

Suggested Reading

Illegal, but useful. (2007). Economist , 385(8553), 39. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27342354&site=ehost-live

Kim, E., & Díaz., J. (2013). Undocumented students and higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38, 77–90. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85690538

Padron, E. J. (2006). Beyond debate. Hispanic, 19, 14. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20697611&site=ehost-live

Serna, G. G., Cohen, J. J., & Nguyen, D. D. (2017). State and institutional policies on in-state resident tuition and financial aid for undocumented students: examining constraints and opportunities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(14–18), 1–22. doi:10.14507/epaa.25.2809. Retrieved March 7, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121491295&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Sneed, M., & Civin, J. (2007). Questioning immigration status when students enroll. School Administrator, 64, 12. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27141169&site=ehost-live

Zehr, Mary Ann. (2007, June 6). Amid immigration debate, settled ground. Education Week, 26, 1–13. Retrieved November 8, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25383669&site=ehost-live