Tennessee state lawmakers introduced a bill, S.B. 836, that would allow school districts and law enforcement agencies to deny enrollment to illegal migrant students. Republican Sen. Bo Watson sponsored the bill, stating that it aims to save the state money. The bill was amended to give school districts the option to charge tuition for a student’s enrollment rather than making it a requirement. Watson clarified that the intention was not to deny education to students, but to address the physical nature of the legislation by charging tuition for those who cannot prove lawful residence.
However, the bill contradicts the current law established by the 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, which mandates that states provide funding for all students seeking a public education, regardless of their immigration status. Immigration attorney Brittany Faith criticized the bill, calling it blatantly unconstitutional and suggesting that it was proposed to challenge the Plyler v. Doe ruling. Faith also raised concerns about the option for schools to charge tuition, pointing out that Tennessee’s tax structure is sales-tax-based. She argued that individuals in legal status and those in illegal status pay the same amount of taxes that go towards the public education system.
The proposed bill in Tennessee to deny enrollment to illegal migrant students is part of a larger trend in the United States. Three other states have passed legislation supporting universal school choice, allowing schools to enroll or refuse to enroll students who are unlawfully present in the country. The bill was introduced with the goal of saving state funds, but critics argue that it violates the principles established by Plyler v. Doe and could create further challenges for immigrant students seeking an education. The debate surrounding the bill brings attention to the intersection of immigration policies and education access, highlighting the complexities and implications of such legislation.
Republican Sen. Bo Watson defended the bill, emphasizing that it does not intend to deny education to students but rather address the legal and financial implications of enrolling illegal migrant students. By offering the option for schools to charge tuition, the bill aims to shift the burden of education costs onto those who are unable to prove lawful residence in the United States. While the bill may align with the goal of saving state funds, critics argue that it undermines the fundamental right to education for all students, as established by the Plyler v. Doe ruling. The conflicting viewpoints and legal implications of the bill underscore the ongoing debate over immigration policies and education rights in the United States.
Despite the intentions behind the bill, critics like immigration attorney Brittany Faith raise concerns about its constitutionality and potential impact on immigrant communities in Tennessee. By challenging the precedent set by Plyler v. Doe, the bill poses a significant legal and ethical dilemma, questioning the rights of immigrant students to access public education. The option for schools to charge tuition based on immigration status further complicates the issue, leading to debates on tax equity and education funding. As the bill moves through the legislative process, it will continue to spark discussions on immigration policies, education access, and the rights of all students to receive a quality education, regardless of their immigration status.
