Immigration reform appears to be near (or at) the top of the Trump administration’s policy agenda. Our Brookings colleagues, Tara Watson and Jonathon Zars, recently laid out the paths the incoming administration might take—and noted that they expect some “high-profile enforcement events to send a signal early in the administration.”
The actions that the Trump administration takes, or threatens to take, could have implications for millions of U.S. students and thousands of U.S. schools. To learn more about what might lie ahead—and what education leaders can do—we reached out to three experts whose work touches on issues of immigration and education:
- Amalia Chamorro, the leader of education policy for UnidosUS
- Sophia Rodriguez, an associate professor at NYU who studies immigrant youth
- Rimga Viskanta, a local school board member in San Diego County, California
Here’s what they have to say:
Question 1: What are the potential effects of enhanced immigration enforcement on U.S. students?
Trump’s plans to step up immigration enforcement on a grand scale will harm millions of children of undocumented parents. Although 87% of the children of immigrants have U.S. citizenship, this makes no difference to the president-elect. Indeed, he has picked former ICE Director Tom Homan, who implemented the zero-tolerance family separation policy under Trump’s first term, as White House border czar. Homan recently said in a media interview that the new enforcement campaign will “seek to deport families together, even if they have young U.S.-born children, leaving it to those families to decide whether to exit together or be split up.” Forcing families to make such impossible decisions will cause deep and irreparable trauma for a generation of children.
Fears of deportation are already leading some students to forgo filling out the FAFSA, jeopardizing their college dreams. As documented in an UnidosUS 2020 report, students who are fearful of being separated from a loved one are expected to learn in increasingly anti-immigrant climates, creating toxic, distracting environments that in turn harm all students. In this endgame, America will lose out on the promise and talent that these children have to offer the country they call home.
My research with hundreds of immigrant families and youth across the country shows fear and uncertainty regarding Trump’s mass deportation plans and anti-immigrant rhetoric. This could impact millions of immigrant youth and children of immigrants, regardless of immigration status, including many from Latino communities. Public schools should be safe spaces under the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, which guarantees educational access for students regardless of immigration status. The Trump administration could try to undermine Plyler through enhanced immigration enforcement around schools and schoolyards, or by abolishing Obama and Biden administration moves to expand sensitive location policies to schools.
This raises many concerns. One concern is that many families don’t know that schools are protected spaces or have a clear sense of their legal rights, and that might lead them to hide, not seek help or services, and/or not send their kids to school. Research also finds that deportation threats and family separation are associated with decreased academic performance and increased likelihood of dropping out. We have also started to learn about the potential long-term impacts of of heightened immigration enforcement, including its effects on college aspirations and enrollment. Beyond all of this, I worry about threats at school and the roles that local law enforcement might play in cooperating with ICE.
Anxiety and uncertainty permeated classrooms during Trump’s first administration due to immigration enforcement actions. During a classroom visit at that time, I saw a 6th grader crying, worried his parents would be deported while he was at school. His concerned classmates, unaware of his circumstances, tried to comfort him. I am worried we may see a similar pattern, but now students’ mental health is even more fragile, partly due to the pandemic’s lingering effects.
Educators, already balancing academic and emotional demands, will face the added challenge of supporting students who may withdraw emotionally or avoid school out of fear that their families could face deportation actions while traveling to or from school. Administrators will need to navigate the complexities of federal immigration policies and their limits on school grounds.
The threat of mass deportation affects more than undocumented students. During Trump’s first term, ICE officials monitored a predominantly Latino neighborhood in our district, intimidating U.S. citizens and legal residents alike. Stories emerged of parents who went to the store and never returned home, leaving children confused, scared, and unsupported. Such actions disrupt families and entire learning environments, fostering insecurity that undermines students’ ability to focus, connect, and thrive in school.
Question 2: What can education leaders do to protect and support their students?
Policymakers at all levels can push back against indiscriminate immigration enforcement and help to mitigate the effects of mass deportation. There is a limit to executive action, and Congress is also accountable for the consequences of harmful immigration policy. Locally, school leaders can set the tone for their school community and provide supportive and welcoming environments to all students and families.
It is important that school personnel are well informed and trained on federal law and guidance pertaining to immigrant students. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe, that a state may not deny access to a basic public education to any child residing in the state, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise. Plyler is still the law of the land, and schools cannot engage in practices that would discourage student enrollment based on their or their parents’ actual or perceived immigration status. Schools should also be encouraged to seek out partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs), which can serve as trusted resources for immigrant families. For example, CBOs can help combat misinformation through Know-Your-Rights training. As Nelson Mandela once said, “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it.”
Policymakers and community advocates, as well as school leaders and critical personnel, can take meaningful actions to protect immigrant students and their families. My research suggests that the most effective actions involve cross-sector, collaborative efforts. In Chicago, local leaders are committing to protect immigrant communities and describing how they will do it. Other policymakers can do the same. State legislators are working on preventive legislation. This includes extending workforce and driving protections (e.g., in Delaware) and higher education protections for immigrant students (e.g., in Maryland). It also includes expanding professional licensure for teachers and nurses, for example, regardless of immigration status (e.g., in Delaware) as well as health care for kids regardless of immigration status (e.g., in Delaware). California state legislators have been working on securing protections in public schools. Similarly, in Texas, state legislation bans immigration enforcement from entering public schools. At community levels, immigrant-serving organizations across the country are providing “know your rights” training, supporting families with emergency plans to prepare for attempted deportation or family separation.
School districts and leaders can develop comprehensive safety plans. They can also train front office staff, educators, and critical personnel like counselors and social workers to respond to ICE threats and support the emotional well-being of immigrant youth and families. Some examples in Los Angeles and New York City provide step-by-step guidelines for principals and school-based personnel (e.g., in denying ICE entry into schools). In times of risk and uncertainty, collaborative, multi-level coordination advocacy is critical, as is supporting the belonging and well-being of immigrant youth and families.
Schools must balance their legal obligations with their commitment to providing a safe, supportive environment for all students. To mitigate the effects of enhanced immigration enforcement, school leaders can take proactive steps to support families. For example, in California, schools cannot ask about immigration status during enrollment, nor can they disclose such information or release student records without parental consent or a court order. Additionally, federal ICE agents are prohibited from entering school property except under special circumstances. Sharing these protections helps families understand their rights and reassures them of the school’s role as a safeguard.
Schools should provide multilingual resources to help families prepare legal plans for their children’s care, including updating emergency contacts and completing caregiver authorization forms. Counseling services are also essential to help students manage the fear and anxiety these policies may cause. Additionally, schools can act as hubs to connect families with immigration lawyers, legal aid organizations, and consulates.
Finally, for school leaders considering public political statements opposing federal actions, I would advocate for discretion. Quiet collaboration with superintendents to establish resources may better protect vulnerable families than actions that risk drawing unwanted attention to their immigration status.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
Commentary
Immigration enforcement and US schools: What could happen and what education leaders can do
January 13, 2025