Texas Governor Sparks Backlash With Talk Of Rolling Back Free School For Immigrant Kids

Governor Greg Abbott’s recent remarks suggesting that Texas may challenge a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding unauthorized immigrant children attending public schools have sparked anger among immigration advocates and educators. Critics have labeled Abbott as "hare-brained" and "cruel," with his Democratic opponent, Beto O’Rourke, stating that he is trying to defund public schools.

Abbott made these comments during a phone appearance on a San Antonio radio talk show, where he agreed with the host’s assertion that the costs associated with educating immigrant children in public schools, particularly due to language barriers, are excessive. Abbott also mentioned that times have changed since the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Plyler v. Doe in 1982, which declared unconstitutional a Texas law that allowed school districts to charge tuition to parents of unauthorized immigrant school children. The Tyler schools at that time sought to impose a tuition fee of $1,000 per child per year.

Abbott did not provide specific details on what has changed that would warrant the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of the Plyler v. Doe decision. Acknowledging that migrants from 155 countries are entering Texas and speaking various languages, Abbott suggested that the challenges faced by the public education system are significant.

In response to Abbott’s comments, Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), criticized the governor as "irresponsible" and accused him of practicing "dog-whistle populism" similar to former President Donald Trump. Saenz clarified that the Plyler case was brought against Texas, not by Texas, and was filed by MALDEF to protect undocumented students from being excluded from public schools. He emphasized that even the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the ruling agreed with the majority that Texas should not have passed the exclusionary law.

Abbott’s statements have drawn strong opposition from immigrant advocates and educators, who view his stance as detrimental to the rights and education of unauthorized immigrant children. The debate surrounding this issue is likely to continue, with advocates arguing for the importance of providing equal access to education for all children, regardless of their immigration status.

"It’s crucial that everyone pays close attention to the wording," O’Rourke emphasized during a press conference at the Texas Capitol. "Governor Abbott opposes providing public education to all children in Texas. He is now openly stating what we’ve known all along since he took office – he is actively trying to defund our public schools." O’Rourke highlighted the significant salary gap between teachers in Texas and teachers in other states.

David Leopold, an immigration attorney and legal advisor for the advocacy group America’s Voice, argued that Abbott has aided in constructing an "anti-immigrant judicial pipeline" and can now boldly expand his attack on immigrants to include undocumented children. Leopold believes Abbott is confident that his legal challenge to Plyler v. Doe will find sympathetic ears in the courtroom of one of his Republican allies.

Zeph Capo, the president of Texas AFT (American Federation of Teachers), criticized Abbott’s comments as "cruel and narrow-minded thinking." In a written statement, Capo expressed concern that if the governor succeeds in his mission, it would disrupt thousands of Texas school campuses and lead to a situation where discriminatory adults target children with inquiries about their legal status. Capo also stated that even legal residents would face speculation about their skin color or accent.

According to the late Professor Michael Olivas from the University of Houston Law Center, in 1975, the Texas Legislature made a provision allowing school districts to charge tuition to parents of unauthorized school children. Olivas explained that the legislation passed without controversy as a small part of routine education statutes, with certain border Texas school superintendents supporting it.

Tyler, where James Plyler served as the superintendent, had approximately 60 unauthorized immigrants among 16,000 total students. Taking advantage of the new law, Tyler began imposing an annual tuition fee of $1,000 on each unauthorized immigrant student. Olivas revealed that a Catholic lay worker raised objections, leading a local lawyer and MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) to file a case in federal district court on behalf of four families. The court allowed the families to use pseudonyms for their protection.

Although the district court judge ruled in 1978 that both the state law and Tyler’s policy were unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the appeals process took four years to resolve. The Plyler case, along with a similar one from Houston, reached the U.S. Supreme Court for arguments in 1981. The following year, five justices upheld the district court’s decision and declared that Texas had failed to demonstrate a substantial state interest in denying K-12 education to certain children. Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority, argued that barring unauthorized immigrant children from school was an ineffective means of deterring unlawful immigration compared to prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. This treatment would subject the unauthorized immigrants to second-class status, contradicting the purpose of the 14th Amendment. Brennan cautioned that the stigma of illiteracy would follow these children for the rest of their lives.