蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

Not so long ago, Americans were fond of talking about our politics as a modest set of disagreements: 鈥淲e agree on the ends,鈥� we鈥檇 say, 鈥渨e just argue about the means.鈥� Since the early 2010s, it鈥檚 gotten harder to believe. 

We鈥檝e suffered through the creep of a dynamic known as 鈥�,鈥� where conspiracy theories, falsehoods and wildly distorted views of reality become easier for some Americans to embrace than the demonstrable facts of our present moment. 

Recently, a House subcommittee hearing offered a new flavor of the problem, as Republicans and their conservative witnesses tried to win political turf by substituting facts about one group of students 鈥� English learners 鈥� with beliefs about children in undocumented families, a very different group of students. 

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government鈥檚 March 11 hearing was titled, 鈥�.鈥� That struck down a Texas law that would have blocked districts from using state education funding to teach undocumented children. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that children are covered by the 14th Amendment鈥檚 Equal Protection Clause, and could not be denied a public education based on their families鈥� legal status. 

Writing for the majority, , 鈥淭he Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power (Texas) asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection.鈥�

The congressional hearing was a culmination of years of work by organizations like , who seek to overturn that decision. After nearly 44 years, they鈥檙e getting closer. This spring, Republicans in the Tennessee legislature passed a to erode the Plyler ruling. 

The Tennessee House of Representatives adopted a bill that would require schools to gather data on students鈥� citizenship and immigration status, while the state Senate approved a measure that would allow public school districts to to students who lack legal documentation. , as time is running out in the state鈥檚 legislative calendar, and lawmakers are jockeying over how to reconcile the two bills. 

This was Tennessee鈥檚 second push to restrict immigrant children鈥檚 access to public schools 鈥� it鈥檚 unlikely that it will be its last. Other states, like and , have made similar efforts. It seems inevitable that conservative state legislators will eventually succeed in enacting a bill along these lines, which will then face a legal challenge from advocates for immigrant families, civil liberties, and/or children鈥檚 data privacy. Ultimately, this may open the door for the court鈥檚 current conservative 6-3 majority to erode or remove Plyler鈥檚 civil rights protections. 

Why would anyone want to keep kids out of school? What could possibly be gained by punishing children for their families鈥� decisions to migrate? 

In the congressional hearing, conservatives鈥� main answer to these questions was financial. Republican Subcommittee chair Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and his fellow conservatives claimed that undocumented children represent a large drain on public education budgets. Critically, the evidence they provided for this relied heavily on confusing undocumented immigrant children with all immigrant children and/or with English learners. 

As a prelude to his questions, Roy claimed, the national debt is “now cracking $39 trillion, and I would note that there are a lot of reasons why, and this is one of them 鈥� we continue to have this fanciful notion that we can just say, ‘Anybody can come into the United States and it doesn’t have an impact on our overall budget.'”

that Texas schools enroll roughly without legal documentation, adding, “for every English learner, Texas schools receive $616 or $950 for those enrolled in a dual language program.” He then asked the Texas Public Policy Foundation鈥檚 Mandy Drogin, one of the witnesses called by Roy and his Republican colleagues, 鈥淗ow much does that cost?鈥� Drogin estimated that this cost Texas around $830 million per year.聽

, this is wildly irresponsible data use. That $830 million isn鈥檛 being spent on the estimated 100,000 undocumented children in Texas. It鈥檚 being spent on the state鈥檚 . 

Meanwhile, those 100,000 undocumented children are a diverse group, with some who are likely currently classified as English learners, others who have already become proficient in English and have moved out of that group and some who spoke English well enough upon their arrival in U.S. schools that they were never classified as English learners in the first place.

Data on English learners that are . In other words, conflating spending on English learners with spending on undocumented children is a bit like claiming that a public library is wasting money on foreigners just because international tourists sometimes come in to use the public WiFi network. 

What鈥檚 more, because the overwhelming majority of English learners are U.S. citizens, if Plyler were reversed and undocumented children were blocked from school, major budget savings. Texas schools would still enroll well over a million English learners with citizenship and/or legal residency documentation. The state would still 鈥� hopefully 鈥� want to maintain these U.S.-born students鈥� linguistic and academic success.

That last bit is key. Texas schools are with linguistically diverse kids 鈥� regardless of their citizenship status or their families鈥� immigration statuses. In the Lone Star State 鈥� and the  鈥� data show these do well. That academic success produces better prepared graduates who go on to contribute more to the economy than they would have if blocked from school 鈥� earning more, paying more taxes and spending more in their local communities.

 This is why of immigration nearly always find that newcomer families 鈥� 鈥� grow the economy and than they cost to public service programs.

These recent assaults on kids鈥� access to public schools exacerbate a concerning conservative trend 鈥� policy research organization KFF studied during the 2024 election and found widespread public confusion. Their researchers polled the public and found that Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to agree with false, negative claims about immigrants. 

When presented with the false statement that 鈥淚mmigrants are causing an increase in violent crime in the U.S.,鈥� fully 45% of Republicans responded that this was definitely true and 36% said it was probably true. By contrast, 39% of Democrats believed that the statement was definitely false 鈥� and another 39% believed that it was probably true. 

Look: Research is not ambiguous on this question 鈥� immigrants are to commit violent than U.S.-born adults. As a National Policing Institute summary of the evidence , 鈥減olitical scapegoating and hyperbole are no substitute for scientific evidence.鈥� 

For leaders serious about improving schools for all kids, that鈥檚 obviously true. But the subcommittee鈥檚 attacks on Plyler show that a perverse inversion of that line may also be true: When it comes to ambitious demagogues, evidence is no match for the allure of xenophobic, hyperbolic scapegoating. 

The views expressed here are Conor P. Williams鈥檚 alone, and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliated organizations. 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.