We’ve suffered through the creep of a dynamic known as “,” 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 — English learners — with beliefs about children in undocumented families, a very different group of students. 

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s March 11 hearing was titled, “.” 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’s Equal Protection Clause, and could not be denied a public education based on their families’ legal status. 

Writing for the majority, , “The 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.”

The congressional hearing was a culmination of years of work by organizations like , who seek to overturn that decision. After nearly 44 years, they’re 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’ 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’s legislative calendar, and lawmakers are jockeying over how to reconcile the two bills. 

This was Tennessee’s second push to restrict immigrant children’s access to public schools — it’s 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’s data privacy. Ultimately, this may open the door for the court’s current conservative 6-3 majority to erode or remove Plyler’s civil rights protections. 

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

In the congressional hearing, conservatives’ 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 … 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’s Mandy Drogin, one of the witnesses called by Roy and his Republican colleagues, “How much does that cost?” Drogin estimated that this cost Texas around $830 million per year. 

, this is wildly irresponsible data use. That $830 million isn’t being spent on the estimated 100,000 undocumented children in Texas. It’s being spent on the state’s . 

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’s 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 — hopefully — want to maintain these U.S.-born students’ linguistic and academic success.

That last bit is key. Texas schools are with linguistically diverse kids — regardless of their citizenship status or their families’ immigration statuses. In the Lone Star State — and the  â€” 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 — earning more, paying more taxes and spending more in their local communities.

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

These recent assaults on kids’ access to public schools exacerbate a concerning conservative trend — 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 “Immigrants are causing an increase in violent crime in the U.S.,” 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 — and another 39% believed that it was probably true. 

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

For leaders serious about improving schools for all kids, that’s obviously true. But the subcommittee’s 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’s alone, and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliated organizations. 

President Donald J. Trump, who watched from the gallery Wednesday in unprecedented fashion while the government made its case, signed an on his first day back in office last year banning birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. His plan would also exclude babies born here whose parents are temporary residents.

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution in 1868 by the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the government, told the court he recognized the amendment was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to those newly freed from enslavement and their children, “whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.” 

It did not, however, grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens, he said. And, Sauer maintained, unlike newly freed people, “those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.”

“For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance,” he said. “For decades following the clause’s adoption, commentators recognized that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens, and illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here. Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Several of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared skeptical of Sauer’s reasoning, peppering him with pointed questions and casting doubt on key elements of his argument. 

Many believe Trump is likely to lose this constitutional battle, though he has that hinged on presidential powers. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority, with three of the justices in that bloc — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — Trump appointees from his first term.

Cecilla Wang, the ACLU’s national legal director and lead attorney in the case that involves several statewide ACLUs and other legal advocacy groups, argued on behalf of the mothers and babies who would be affected by Trump’s order. In a less than three-minute opening statement, she said the 14th amendment is critical to our nation’s understanding of itself.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they’ll tell you: Everyone born here is a citizen alike,” said Wang, whose Taiwanese parents came to the U.S. as graduate students. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship was codified and protected by the , which provided that “person[s] born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” 

This came decades after another critically related ruling, the 1898 Supreme Court case , which challenged the citizenship of a Chinese-American San Francisco resident. Ark, who was denied re-entry into the U.S. after visiting his parents in China, was found to be protected by the 14th amendment. 

Wang believes that case bolsters her argument. She said, too, Trump’s executive order would throw the country into chaos. The president left the court minutes into her remarks. 

“The 14th Amendment’s fixed, bright-line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation,” she said. “It comes from text and history. It is workable, and it prevents manipulation. The executive order fails on all those counts. Swathes of Americans would be rendered stateless. Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship. And if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans — past, present and future â€” could be called into question.”

While some members seemed more amenable to her arguments, conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked her about babies born in the United States who do not automatically become citizens, including the children of ambassadors, for example. 

“If those who framed and adopted the 14th Amendment had wanted to limit the citizenship test to just those specific groups that you concede fall outside the birthright rule, why didn’t they refer to those groups?” he asked. 

Wang said the answer was baked into the 14th amendment by the language that guarantees citizenship outside a few rare exceptions of those not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Gorsuch said Wang had “good stuff on her side.” She, in turn, said the Trump administration’s proposed approach to citizenship contradicts what earlier leaders sought to achieve. 

“We can’t take the current administration’s policy considerations into account … to radically reinterpret the 14th amendment,” Wang said, adding she believed those who ratified it did, in fact, consider future immigration. “Contrary to the government’s arguments now, they wanted to grow this country, make sure we had a citizenry, populate the military and settle the country.”

But Sauer, the solicitor general, said birthright citizenship, as it stands, is “a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws, but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.” 

And, he said, there is another problem. 

“It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as unaccounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have fought to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States,” he said. 

When asked whether the government knew how many women came to the U.S. specifically to give birth, Sauer could not provide a solid figure. 

Several of the justices also questioned Sauer about his key argument that established legal domicile must exist to qualify for birthright citizenship, asking whether it referred to the domicile of parents or their offspring.

“Under the minimum definition of domicile,” Alito said, “a person’s domicile is the place where he or she intends to make a permanent home.” 

Normally, Alito said, one would think a person who is subject to arrest and removal could not establish domicile. But, he said, we have a unique situation in the United States where people may live here for years and be subject to deportation yet, “have in their minds made a permanent home here and have established roots — and that raises a humanitarian problem.”

Lower courts on numerous occasions have found Trump’s order unconstitutional and blocked its implementation. Since it was issued, Trump has launched a massive deportation campaign that has harmed students and schools and become with the American people — particularly after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.

“This is potentially the most important civics lesson of a generation,” said Adam Strom, co-founder and executive director of Re-Imagining Migration. “Ultimately, birthright citizenship is about who gets to claim their place in this country … stripping that in a moment of aggressive immigration enforcement could render (children) stateless.”

Such a person is not recognized as a citizen of any nation and therefore has very limited protection. The U.N. estimated in 2019 that there were more than 4.2 million stateless  people around the world but the actual number is believed to be more than . 

Alejandra Vázquez Baur, a fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, and director of the said undoing birthright citizenship would be a “disaster” for hospitals and a “nightmare for families” — regardless of their status — as they would have to prove citizenship for their newborn child to have basic human rights.   

“It’s no coincidence that they’re seeking to strip birthright citizenship protections for U.S.-born children of immigrants while simultaneously attacking the foundational right to education for all granted by Plyler v. Doe,” she said, referring to the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that a child cannot be denied a public education based on their immigration status. 

“Together, these attacks undermine our democracy and threaten to create an underclass of millions of children with uncertain futures and no rights in this country,” she said. “It is fundamentally immoral, unconstitutional, anti-child and un-American.”

The court is expected to render a decision in late June or early July.

Students in the Bronx high school that Dylan Lopez Contreras attended before he was arrested by immigration agents last month have sent hundreds of letters in recent weeks to the Western Pennsylvania detention center where he is being held.

Written in a third-period elective class set aside for this purpose, staff made sure to send the missives individually, rather than in a single pile, hoping Contreras would enjoy their support over time . 

Contreras, 20, didn’t always have time for school — working to help support his family would often pull him away, one of his teachers told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ â€” but he left his mark on the ELLIS Prep campus. He was the one who introduced a fun new tradition, one that continues in his absence, maybe even in his honor: He got the kids to play Uno in their downtime. 

His teacher could hear their laughter over the game in the hallway. So when it came time to send Contreras a supportive note, telling him to stay strong during a dark time, one of them slipped an Uno card inside the envelope. 

“I’m going to give him a +4,” the student told his teacher, referring to a card used to delay or prevent an opponent’s victory. “That would make him laugh.”

Contreras’ May 21 arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — and that of a Massachusetts high school junior who was picked up by ICE 10 days later — have intensified anxiety among educators who serve immigrant students. They say their early fears about President Trump’s return to power are now playing out. 

an 11th grader at Grover Cleveland High School in Queens, was detained June 4 after a routine immigration hearing, Public Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles Ramos confirmed Saturday. The teen’s name has not been released.

“They are in incredible pain right now,” Queens state Assemblywoman Claire Valdez told about the family. “They are terrified for their son. They are terrified for the rest of their family. I don’t think that you have to be a parent to put yourself in their shoes and to imagine someone that you love more than life itself being taken away in this incredibly, incredibly cruel way.”

And while these students engage in separate legal battles, CNN reported last week that some 500 children who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors have been taken into federal custody by agents following “welfare checks” that many advocates say are wreaking havoc. Families say the children have been increasingly difficult to find and extract from government “care.”  

The efforts targeting children — some — may be the result of increased pressure from a reportedly furious White House deputy chief of staff to boost the number of immigration-related arrests to 3,000 per day. 

Adam Strom, executive director of Re-Imagining Migration, said some school districts have been preparing for this escalation — creating rapid response teams and family support networks that activate when immigration enforcement occurs — but others are shocked at what they’re witnessing.

“For other communities, this is a wake-up call … the unimaginable is happening in communities like their own, to students not so different from the kids in their own classrooms,” Strom said. 

After much protest, 18-year-old Massachusetts teen Marcelo Gomes da Silva was granted bond and from custody Thursday. He said he had , had crackers for lunch and dinner, slept on a concrete floor with a metallic blanket and had to use the bathroom in front of 40 other men. 

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said he should never have been taken into custody by ICE agents, who later admitted they were looking for his father.

“While ICE officers never intended to apprehend Gomes-DaSilva, he was found to be in the United States illegally and subject to removal proceedings, so officers made the arrest,” homeland security officials said in a . 

The New York and Massachusetts cases come amid others. An 18-year-old student from Colombia living in Detroit, was as he was driving friends to join their high school field trip. Federal officials said he already had a removal order from a judge. 

In another case, a was held in an ICE detention facility for weeks after she was arrested by local police in early May on traffic charges that were later dismissed. 

As the cop told Ximena Arias Cristobal he was taking her to jail, she replied shakily that she couldn’t go because she had finals the next week and her family “really depends on this.” Released on bond May 22, the young woman is now facing deportation to Mexico, a country she left when she was 4.

Far younger children — including toddlers — have been defending themselves in immigration court for years. And the many organizations that have helped them through the system are now under attack. Some have been issued — Trump ceased funding for their legal representation — leaving them in further jeopardy. 

4-Year-Old Immigrant and Other Young Kids Go to Court Alone

Nancy Duchesneau, a senior pre-K-to-12 research manager at the advocacy organization EdTrust, said it’s too early to tell if the country’s most recent immigration enforcement campaign — manifested in raids and surprise detentions after court appearances — has led to a drop in school attendance .

Duchesneau noted that ICE’s aggressive tactics disrupt learning and cause harm to a wide swath of students, not just immigrants or those with foreign-born parents.  

“When we see trauma happen to other kids, or to other people, we still have emotional impacts from that,” she said. “Seeing your friends taken away — kids that you know — even if you are an American citizen, we don’t know what else could happen.”

Like Strom, she said schools should make sure there are clear policies in place for when ICE agents visit campus and that both students and staff know their rights.

Eric Marquez, one of Dylan’s teachers at ELLIS Preparatory Academy, said he taught Contreras for weeks last fall before the young man, who worked , started regularly missing school. 

“If he had a chance to work, he worked,” Marquez said. 

His teachers understand that struggle. ELLIS Prep is a small specialized school that serves older newcomer students with limited English, nearly all of whom had arrived in the country just weeks or months before their admission. Many are behind on their credits and some have massive gaps in their education. Despite these challenges, Marquez said many go on to college. 

ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ published a 16-month-long undercover investigation last year into how schools respond to enrollment requests from students like Contreras. The fictional teen in ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ’s Unwelcome to America project, “Hector Guerrero,” was also Venezuelan. But unlike Contreras, Hector, 19, was refused admission to more than 200 high schools across the U.S. where he had a legal right to attend based on his age.

At the time of our reporting, Donald Trump, then a leading presidential contender, was once again vilifying immigrants on the campaign trail, a winning tactic for a man who rode a similar wave of xenophobia into office in 2016. 

Worry was beginning to build over how far he might go as president to deport undocumented children and families. 

Now five months into Trump’s second term, Marquez remembers the moment he learned his student had been arrested and was living out that fear.

“For me, it was soul-crushing,” the teacher said. “It hit everyone. It was symbolic in a way. He was that over-age, under-credited student with a limited, interrupted formal education. But he was super smart. He totally can go to college. He really can.”

A federal judge in Washington state today President Donald J. Trump’s three-day-old executive order to end birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, called the order .” He agreed with the four state plaintiffs that it would cause irreparable harm to those denied their right to citizenship, subjected to the risk of deportation and family separation and deprived of federally funded medical care and public benefits that “prevent child poverty and promote child health,” also impacting their education. A separate federal lawsuit is pending in Massachusetts.

— plus San Francisco and Washington, D.C. — and several civil rights groups are suing to block President Donald J. Trump’s move to undo birthright citizenship through executive order, a constitutional challenge education leaders say could transform public schools. 

Trump, who rode a to a second term, argues that to any child whose mother is unlawfully present in the United States or lawfully present on a temporary basis — such as foreign students — and whose father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. 

The move garnered immediate backlash: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. It states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” 

“If you lose the protections of birthright citizenship and is overturned or somehow ignored, then I think a lot of families would withdraw their children from school out of fear of deportation,” said immigration advocate and policy expert Timothy Boals, referring to the 1982 Supreme Court case which forbids schools from denying enrollment based on a child’s or their parents’ immigration status. 

Conservative forces aligned with the Trump administration have been strategizing an end to Plyler . That potential threat is now being amplified with the affront on birthright citizenship and Tuesday’s announcement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are now free to , churches and other once-protected areas. The president has already pledged and a return to .

“What that means is more children are denied an education and that’s not good for our society if they end up staying,” said Boals, “and it’s certainly not good for the students wherever they end up going.”

Speaking specifically about the ICE enforcement change, Laura Gardner, who founded Immigrant Connections, a consulting group that works with educators, said the policy will create “intense fear” and could negatively impact student attendance and family engagement. It will also be difficult for teachers, whom she said can’t do their job when children aren’t in school. 

“As educators, we always remind students and families that schools are a safe space and now we can’t really guarantee that,” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ. “Ultimately, all this is going to do is hurt innocent children.”

About lived with an unauthorized immigrant parent in 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. About 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the United States in 2016, the latest year for which information is available, according to . This represents a 36% decrease from a peak of about 390,000 in 2007.

The president also seeks to prohibit government agencies from issuing documents recognizing an infant’s citizenship if born under the circumstances he outlined — or from accepting documents issued by state, local or other authorities acknowledging their citizenship. 

The controversial order could go into effect Feb. 19, leaving children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents, from that date on, without any legal status. “They will all be deportable and many will be stateless,” according to . 

It said Trump has no right to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment, “Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth.”

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups fighting the move, called it a reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values.

“Birthright citizenship is part of what makes the United States the strong and dynamic nation that it is,” he said. “This order seeks to repeat one of the gravest errors in American history, by creating a permanent subclass of people born in the U.S. who are denied full rights as Americans.”

Romero’s remarks harken back to one of the Supreme Court’s most reviled rulings: . In that 1857 case, the court ruled that enslaved people, including Dred Scott, were not citizens of the United States and, as a result, could not expect any protection from the federal government or courts, according to the . 

The ruling, which pushed the nation toward civil war, was essentially undone by the 13th and 14th amendments. 

New York Attorney General Letitia James lambasted Trump for trying to reverse what has been a hallmark of the nation for more than 150 years.

“This executive order is nothing but an attempt to sow division and fear, but we are prepared to fight back with the full force of the law to uphold the integrity of our Constitution,” she said. “As Attorney General, I will always protect the legal rights of immigrants and their families and communities.”

If Trump’s order is implemented, the U.S. would join other nations that do not allow birthright citizenship — or greatly restrict such protections — including and Australia. 

As of 2022, reported that unauthorized immigrants represented 3.3% of the total U.S. population and 23% of the foreign-born population: Immigrants as a whole comprised 14.3% of the nation’s population that year, below the record high of 14.8% reached in 1890.

At an inaugural prayer service Tuesday, an Episcopal bishop made to reconsider his views on immigrants and their kids. 

“… they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors,” the Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde said. “… I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear their parents will be taken away …”

The next day Trumpand described Edgar Budde as a “so-called Bishop” and a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater” who was not compelling or smart.