Dr. Sophia Rodriguez is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and Sociology of Education at NYU Steinhardt. She founded and directs the ImmigrantEdNext Research Lab, a public-facing research hub that involves mentoring doctoral students about how districts, schools, and community-based organizations can create spaces of belonging for immigrant youth.
What Immigrant Youth and Families are Facing
“It’s disturbing, what is happening to immigrant families, right outside of our school.” This quote emerged during a recent conversation with a principal from my research on equity for immigrant students in public school systems. She and her entire school were working to develop safety plans and other coordination protocols to share with families as government action towards immigrant communities revealed increasing hostility and violence. Despite the mounting fear that schools now face, especially after Trump reversed Biden’s protected areas policy, many school leaders across the country remain committed to immigrant students’ rights. This principal, whom I recently spoke with, shared that she wants school to be “safe,” a place where immigrant youth and children can feel like “they can forget about what is happening outside of the school.” This sentiment to protect kids and families, especially in a precarious political climate where there will be limits to the kind of protection that schools can guarantee, reflects feelings of many schools and communities in our current moment.
Amid a rapidly evolving political landscape, immigrant youth, who are undocumented, face increasing risk as the current administration threatens the rights and safety of undocumented students. Between November 2024 and October 2025, 19 states initiated 33 bills regarding undocumented immigrants’ access to public education and other social services. While Trump’s political campaign leveraged anti-immigrant, racist, and discriminatory attitudes and plans, prior, during, and after his election win, state-level legislation existed and was emergent. I have tracked educational access-related policies since November 2024, with the beginning of Trump’s election, to also observe the proliferation of anti-immigrant (and pro-immigrant in some places) bills.
In August 2025, I wrote about the impact of anti-Plyler bills on the lives of immigrant youth. Plyler v. Doe (1982), which guarantees the right for students to access public education regardless of their immigration status, risks being undermined by the recent onslaught of legislation. We noticed an uptick in policies as states were emboldened with anti-immigrant ideologies and attempted to initiate and enact anti-Plyler legislation. Since Trump ran on racist, xenophobic policies, it was unsurprising to see these bills in historically anti-immigrant states, e.g., TN, TX, and OK. In our initial policy tracking and analysis, we found that the educational access-related policies contained either threatening, exclusionary language or protective language, particularly around undocumented immigrant students’ access to education.
We define exclusionary policies as policies that seek to exclude immigrant youth from access to educational opportunities and the right to education guaranteed under Plyler v. Doe. On the other hand, we define inclusionary policies as those that protect rights afforded by Plyler. Within this analysis, I observed state policies to use threatening language as removing or limiting rights and access to education or social services (e.g., Tennessee HB0145, Indiana HB1394), while protective language as related to ensuring rights and access (Illinois Safe Schools Act, California Safe Haven Schools & Child Care Act). While both Tennessee HB0145 and Indiana HB1394 failed, similar bills persist in other states, and additional legislation that undermines immigrant rights or mimics these bills to restrict rights persist. Moreover, as education-related policies surged, states have introduced legislation that seeks to further undermine undocumented students’ and their families rights including making students’ status public or limiting access to state benefits including (e.g., Idaho HB382 (failed) and Oklahoma HB1671).
This binary – exclusionary and inclusionary – is an initial heuristic for understanding the broader policy landscape. Within the exclusionary legislation, there are examples of states attempting to allow immigration enforcement into prior sensitive locations, and requiring states or agencies like schools to report students’ immigration status. In terms of protective policies, we see examples of punishing entities trying to strip immigrants of their rights, e.g., Nevada AB217, which would make it a misdemeanor for school employees to share student or family immigration status information with enforcement officials unless they had a warrant.
In my preliminary policy analysis, I build upon past research that examines the ideological and detrimental impacts of state policies that seek to exclude immigrants from educational access. I characterize these policies as either inclusionary or exclusionary of undocumented immigrants’ rights and access to privacy and social services.
Below, I share how the language in these policies has either protected or threatened the rights of undocumented immigrants (as well as those who work with and for them). We also offer examples and sample language from pieces of state-level legislation that exemplify each of these themes from several states throughout the country. We end with recommendations for public scholars and researchers.
Exclusionary Policies and Language
As of October 2025, several bills still exist that are exclusionary to undocumented immigrants, specifically related to educational access; these are policies that aim to threaten or take away undocumented immigrants’ rights to privacy and public services. For example, these proposed policies threaten immigrants’ livelihood and well-being, and potential for flourishing by aiming to limit access to public education or pushing schools to cooperate with immigration enforcement agencies. The general climate of fear is present in immigrant communities, which has negatively impacted mental health.
Proposed bills have threatened to create financial barriers for undocumented students to gain access to public education. Several pieces of legislation, some already failed, include language that mentions that students without verified legal status may be denied enrollment or required to pay tuition fees for public education or for publicly funded school programs. States in this category include: NJ (AB 5233) recently introduced, and failed bills in TN (HB0145), TN (HB0746), and TX (SB 1798). While some of these are related to higher education exclusion and have since failed at the time of this blog, they are important to note how states are pushing an anti-immigrant agenda, e.g. FL-2C and TX SB 1798.
Further, several states have stated that their schools and local enforcement will cooperate with immigration enforcement agencies, signaling a shift toward compliance with federal initiatives. For example, in Ohio SB172 would allow ICE agents to make arrests in public spaces such as public schools “based solely on suspicion”— with or without a warrant. In the current climate, license to racially discriminate and profile is pervasive.
Inclusionary Policies and Language
As of October 2025, states have also initiated legislation that are inclusionary in nature; these are policies that aim to protect undocumented immigrants’ rights to privacy and public services. For example, these policies make efforts to protect the confidentiality of students’ immigration status, shield immigrant students and their families from immigration enforcement in school settings, and reiterate undocumented immigrants’ rights to free public education.
Three state-level legislations across three states have reaffirmed commitments to student privacy and limiting data-sharing about immigration status without court-issued warrants. For example, Delaware HRC 20 prohibits “school staff asking about or sharing information with non-school personnel regarding a student or student’s family members’ immigration status,” thereby protecting students and their family members’ privacy.
Additionally, legislation included language that mentioned that schools must develop policies to limit the presence and activities of immigration enforcement officers on school grounds. For example, Nevada AB217 states that “A school district or public school, and any employee... shall not grant a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or other federal official engaging in the investigation or enforcement of immigration laws, permission to access the grounds, buildings or facilities of a school district or public school without a lawful order or warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
While the policy landscape is ever-evolving, we continue to notice instances where state policies are inclusive generally, and inclusive with conditions, and are concern remains that even in some of the historically pro or inclusive immigrant states, limitations on educational rights and immigrants everyday lives are occurring.
Looking Ahead and Protecting Immigrant Youth
The Supreme Court affirmed in Plyler v. Doe (1982) that children have a right to public education regardless of their immigration status and that states cannot enact policies or laws that deny immigrant youths access to public schools. Returning to the words of the principal and the incredible educators and community leaders and advocates on the ground, we know schools have historically tried to protect immigrant youth and families. Now more than ever, support for schools and school-based personnel is critical. In my current research, I have found that school leaders are encouraging collaborative work among staff, affirming that families are safe, and shifting programs and plans to assuage family’s fear of increased immigration enforcement. One educator shared, “I will walk a kid to his or her family member to ensure a safe handoff,” but even in these precarious times, families remain nervous and uncertain. Schools can ensure they have communication, and safety protocols, and ought to consider how to support families during any deportation or detention incidents, and the process of engaging with immigration. There is uncertainty around the legality and morality of this work as schools are not always staffed or trained to support families during their interactions with immigration. Systemic and coordinated leadership efforts are needed, and the potential for partnerships with community-based advocates and organizations is essential.
This policy analysis is on-going, Stay up to date by visiting ImmigrantEdNext. Graduate research assistants at the ImmigrantEdNext Research Lab contributed to this article.