    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       IMMIGRATION POLICY BY COURT ORDER:
                      THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PLYLER v. DOE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
                                  LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-60

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-164                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
    Vacancy

                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                             CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair

    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRANDON GILL, Texas                  DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1
    The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
      the State of Pennsylvania......................................     4
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Mandy Drogin, Senior Fellow, Government Reform & Oversight
      Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    11
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    14
    Matt J. O'Brien, Deputy Executive Director, Federation for
      American Immigration Reform
      Oral Testimony.................................................    17
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    19
    James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    26
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    28
    Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel, Mexican American
      Legal Defense and Education Fund
      Oral Testimony.................................................    41
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    43

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
      and Limited Government, for the record.........................    83

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
      Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
        A statement from Alejandra Vazquez Baur, Fellow, The Century
            Foundation, Mar. 18, 2026
        A report entitled, ``The Power of Plyler: The societal and
            economic gains of equal access to education for
            undocumented children and the future losses if it is
            taken away,'' Dec. 9, 2025, fwd.us
        An article enitled, ``The Power of Plyler in Texas,'' Dec.
            2025, fwd.us
        A Research Brief entitled, ``Presence of Immigrant Students
            Boosts Test Scores for All,'' Apr. 14, 2021, UCLA
            Anderson Review
        An article entitled, `` `There are kids not going to school':
            fear of ICE is keeping children from classes in
            Connecticut,'' Jan. 23, 2026, The Guardian
        An article entitled, ``In increasingly Hispanic Memphis
            schools, immigration enforcement surge brings fear,
            absences,'' Oct. 28, 2025, Tennessee | Lookout, Chalkbeat
        An article entitled, ``Immigrant student enrollment is
            dwindling at schools across the US amid immigration
            crackdowns,'' Nov. 17, 2025, AP News
        An article entitled, ``In cities targeted by ICE, empty desks
            and school disruptions follow,'' Nov. 24, 2025, The
            Washington Post
        An article entitled, ``Chicago teachers say immigration
            enforcement near schools is scaring kids and disrupting
            class,'' Oct. 14, 2025, NBC News
        An article entitled, ``Attendance drops at Minnesota schools
            as federal immigration enforcement intensifies
            anxieties,'' Jan. 15, 2026, The Minnesota Star Tribune
        An article entitled, ``Dozens of pardoned January 6
            insurrectionists have been arrested again,'' Jan. 6,
            2026, The 19th
        A statement from Patrick Wolf, Professor, Education Policy,
            University of Arkansas
        A statement from Gerard Robinson, Professor of Practice,
            University of Virginia, Mar. 17, 2026
        A statement from Sophia Rodriguez, Associate Professor,
            Educational Policy Studies, New York University, Mar. 18,
            2026
        A statement from All4Ed Coalition, Mar. 18, 2026,
        A statement from the National Immigration Law Center (NILC),
            Mar. 18, 2026
        A statement from the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL),
            Mar. 18, 2026
        A statement from Wendy Cervantes, Director, Immigration and
            Immigrant Families, The Center of Law and Social Policy
            (CLSP), Mar. 18, 2026
        A statement from Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus on
            Children, Mar. 18, 2026
        A statement from American Federation of Labor and Congress of
            Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), Mar. 18, 2026
        An article entitled, ``Analysis: Who are the immigrants who
            come to the U.S.? Here's the data,'' Feb. 6, 2025, PBS
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
      from the State of Wyoming, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Illegal immigrant student accused of
            groping girls in N. Virginia High School,'' Mar. 14,
            2026, 7News
        An article entitled, ``Vance reveals $19B fraud uncovered in
            Minneapolis, hints California is next target,'' Mar 13,
            2026, Fox News
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
      from the State of Washington, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Granting Undocumented Students Access
            to Public Education Delivers $633 Billion Return on
            Investment,'' Jan. 14, 2026, New America
        An article entitled, ``Are immigrant students
            disproportionately consuming educational resources?''
            Oct. 3, 2019, Brookings
        An article entitled, ``Immigrants are less likely to commit
            crimes than U.S.-born Americans, studies find,'' Mar. 8,
            2024, NPR
        A Working Paper entitled, ``Illegal Immigration and Crime in
            Texas,'' Oct. 13, 2020, CATO Institute
        An article entitled, ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate
            Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate,'' Sept. 12, 2024,
            National Institute of Justice
    A report entitled, ``The Power of Plyler: The societal and
      economic gains of equal access to education for undocumented
      children and the future losses if it is taken away,'' Dec. 9,
      2025, fwd.us, submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove,
      a Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
      Government from the State of California, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
      the State of Texas, for the record
        A report entitled, ``SCAAP Data Suggest Illegal Aliens Commit
            Crime at a Much Higher RateThan Citizens & Lawful
            Immigrants,'' Feb. 2019, Federation for American
            Immigration Reform (FAIR)
        A report entitled, ``Misuse of Texas Data Understates Illegal
            Immigrant Criminality,'' Oct. 11, 2022, Center for
            Immigration Studies (CIS)
        A report entitled, ``How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the
            United States? 2025 Update,'' August 2025, Federation for
            American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
        A report entitled, ``Every State Should Challenge Plyler v.
            Doe: Time to End Free Education for Illegal Alien K-12
            Students,'' Feb. 17, 2026, The Heritage Foundation

                                    APPENDIX

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont,
      for the record
        A letter to the Honorable the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking
            Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
            of Maryland, from the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus,
            Mar. 17, 2026
        A document enitled,``Educator Impact Statements About the
            Importance of Plyler v. Doe,'' Mar. 18, 2026, The Century
            Foundation
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
      Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Dozens of pardoned January 6
            insurrectionists have been arrested again,'' Jan. 6,
            2026, The 19th News
        A statement from Mark Delich, Vice President, Government
            Relations, FWD.us
        A letter from Kimberly Trinca, Director, Government
            Relations, National Education Association, Mar. 17, 2026
        A statement from Dr. Marie Moreno, CEO/Founder, Newcomer
            Success, Mar. 20, 2026
        A statement from The Niskanen Center, Mar. 18, 2026
        A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee
            on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State
            of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
            Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
            Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, from
            The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Mar.
            26, 2026
        A statement from Roman Palomares, National President,
            National Board Chair. League of United Latin American
            Citizens (LULAC), Mar. 18, 2026
        A statement from the Intercultural Development Research
            Association (IDRA), Mar. 27, 2026
        A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee
            on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State
            of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
            Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
            Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, from
            the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Apr.
            3, 2026

                       IMMIGRATION POLICY BY COURT ORDER:
                      THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PLYLER v. DOE

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 18, 2026

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Charles Eugene
    Roy [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Roy, McClintock, Massie,
    Hagerman, Hunt, Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Cohen,
    Jayapal, Balint, Kamlager-Dove, and Goldman.
        Mr. Roy. Welcome to today's hearing on the adverse effects
    of Plyler v. Doe. I will now recognize myself for an opening
    statement.
        In 1975, Texas took a bold stand against illegal
    immigration after experiencing the adverse consequences of
    illegal immigration in its classrooms firsthand, recognizing
    the Federal Government wasn't doing enough to secure our
    borders.
        That same year, Texas passed a law to prevent illegal alien
    minors from crowding its K-12 public schools, prioritizing
    American students based on the belief that limited resources
    should benefit those with legal status, a point underscored by
    Federal inaction.
        The law was challenged and eventually made its way to the
    Supreme Court in 1982, where five Supreme Court Justices
    declared that Texas, and every State in the Union, is
    constitutionally required to offer free public education to
    illegal alien minors.
        The case was called Plyler v. Doe. It is time for it to go.
    Without even a head fake toward the original meaning of the
    14th Amendment or the court's Equal Protection Clause case law,
    the Plyler majority held that American citizens must subsidize
    the education of minors who are in our country illegally.
        At the outset, Plyler is constitutionally indefensible,
    having no basis in law or even commonsense. The court's
    majority relied on two key premises.
        First, that illegal alien minors are not responsible for
    their immigration status. Second, that mandatory free education
    for illegal aliens does not burden States.
        The court referenced the Equal Protection Clause, a
    provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits States from
    denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal
    protection of the laws.
        The five justice Majority set aside every conventional tool
    of Constitutional interpretation and simply wished a new right
    into existence, by legislating from the bench using the Equal
    Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as justification.
        It is absurd to claim that the drafters of the 14th
    Amendment understood it to guarantee public benefits to
    individuals who have no right to be in the country and whose
    very presence is a violation of American law.
        Plyler gets the Constitutional basics wrong about what
    constitutes a right under the Equal Protection Clause. The 14th
    Amendment States that no State shall deprive any person of
    life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny
    to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
    the laws.
        By definition, illegal aliens, including those who are
    minors, are trespassers to the Nation, as they entered or
    overstayed without the consent of the American people, which
    makes them persons outside of the jurisdiction of the United
    States.
        Immigration, legal or illegal, is not a fundamental right.
    Congress establishes which aliens, how many of which, under
    what circumstances, if any, are allowed to enter, and
    determines what they are entitled to once they are within our
    borders.
        Similarly, accessing public education is not a fundamental
    right, explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution
    under the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, the Supreme
    Court majority in Plyler, based part of its ruling on a
    misguided premise that unchecked immigration and education
    somehow mandated by the 14th Amendment.
        Just as important, the court's majority claimed that the
    number of illegal aliens in public schools in Texas was small,
    and that there was no evidence in the record suggesting that
    illegal entrance imposed any significant burden on the State's
    economy. That premise fails on two fronts.
        First, any amount of illegal immigration in our hospitals,
    jails, schools, or elsewhere should not be tolerated, and
    definitely represents a significant burden on taxpayers.
    Second, the States should have the ability to curb it.
        Texas's experience with the negative impacts of illegal
    immigration in its classroom since the 1970s, requiring State
    funds from law-abiding residents exemplifies why States should
    have legislative options to address these costs.
        Moreover, fundamental to the issue at hand, the facts
    surrounding illegal immigration to Texas and nationwide have
    worsened since 1982. For starters, our Nation's illegal alien
    population was roughly around three million in 1982, has
    skyrocketed to an estimated 15-20 million last year, meaning we
    have five times the number of illegal aliens we had 40 years
    ago.
        As of 2025, Texas had more than 2.7 million illegal aliens
    residing across the State, draining public resources and
    services. What is to blame for this surge of immigration
    lawbreakers?
        Up until President Trump returned to office, the Federal
    Government had refused to take seriously its most basic
    responsibility for securing our borders. The Federal Government
    has also issued more amnesties, both at the Congressional and
    Executive Branch levels that have shielded millions from
    deportation, incentivizing more of the same lawless behavior.
        At the State level, we have seen localities issue more
    magnets that attract illegal immigration, not fewer, such as
    offering taxpayer-subsidized benefits to illegal aliens.
        More recently, we have had activist judges strike down
    legally sound policies aimed at putting Americans first.
        By any objective measure, the America we live in today with
    an exponential growing significant burden on local resources
    and failed Federal immigration policies demonstrates that the
    effects of the Plyler decision have become worse since 1982.
        To add to the problem of illegal aliens in our schools, we
    have been met with unaccompanied alien minors who have traveled
    across the globe due to failed policies under the previous
    Administration and under other Democratic regimes, to our
    border to be released into the interior thanks to exploited
    laws.
        Over the last decade, more than 700,000 unaccompanied
    minors have crossed the border illegally, which by the way,
    endangers the children in addition to providing a burden on our
    schools and on our systems in the State of Texas.
        American taxpayers provide free public education to every
    single UAC enrolled in a public school. I can tell you
    firsthand in Texas, the burden that is placed on the people of
    Texas, the taxpayers of Texas, our local jurisdictions, because
    of these failed policies, and because of a Supreme Court ruling
    that we have no business continuing to operate under.
        In Cleveland, Texas ISD, where once 40 percent of its 3,500
    students were Hispanic, today 90 percent of its 10,800 students
    are Hispanic, many of whom do not speak English. This has led
    the district to hire foreign-born teachers through specialist
    work visas to teach ESL classes to immigrant students.
        Student enrollment in Cleveland ISD is set to double this
    year, with a projected price tag of $1.2 billion over the next
    decade.
        A public school in Houston named Las Americas Newcomer
    Middle School started a semester with 150 immigrant and refugee
    students, and the following year it was 325. Principal Marie
    Moreno said of the situation, ``it's put a burden on me because
    I've run out of space. I can't handle them. They're going next
    door to another school.''
        Since 2015, over 98,000 unaccompanied alien children have
    been released to sponsors in Texas, adding more illegal alien
    minors to our schools. Based on Texas's average per people
    spending of $13,900, just one year of public education of these
    alien children cost Texans $1.3 billion nationwide, the cost to
    help alien school children, legal immigrant minors, and
    refugees learn English through limited English proficiency
    programs in American schools, is $78 billion annually,
    according to a 2022 study. All the while, the American
    taxpayers left with a bill to pay for the education.
        The financial costs of Plyler are undoubtedly staggering,
    clearly representing a significant burden on localities. It
    isn't just fiscal costs we should be worried about.
        Our Nation's classrooms routinely deal with illegal alien
    students, many of whom know little to no English, and may
    struggle with other learning disabilities. For example, a 2017
    study by the Annie Casey Foundation revealed that immigrant
    children, legal or illegal, had lower reading and math
    proficiency scores compared to their American-born classmates.
        The study found that among fourth grade children from
    immigrant families, only eight percent scored at or above the
    proficiency level. In math, proficiency rates are even worse.
        Such data should prompt a broader discussion about the
    demands placed on schools and educators who must use limited
    resources meant for American students by American taxpayers to
    help immigrant children achieve proficiency standards.
        In the small community of Charleroi, Pennsylvania, did I
    pronounce that right? An influx of illegal, well, I can either,
    it is Pennsylvania, so it is closer than it is to Austin.
        An influx of illegal alien Haitians led to a complete
    disruption of the educational environment. In the 2021 school
    year alone, the number of non-English speaking students
    skyrocketed from 12 to 220 in a district of only 1,450
    students.
        Teachers had to pause in the middle of lessons to translate
    using phone apps, leaving one wondering if she was hindering
    the learning of American students. Today, this small industrial
    town spends $400,000 annually on five staff members dedicated
    to non-English speaking aliens.
        Similarly, in a single year, Maryland saw more than 2,200
    unaccompanied minors arrive, imposing burdens on the school
    administrators. In Miami-Dade County in public schools
    reporting spending $1,959 more per child for immigrant children
    and are relying on community partnerships.
        I could go on with examples of this absurdity across the
    country. Ironically writing for the majority opinion for
    Plyler, Justice Brennan wrote that such policies allowing
    illegal aliens access to public schools could likely lead to
    ``the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates
    within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs
    of unemployment, welfare, and crime.''
        Fast forward 40 years, the American students, teachers, and
    taxpayers are living with the unmitigated consequences of that
    ruling.
        The state governments and Congress have restricted illegal
    aliens from accessing SNAP, Medicaid, in-State tuition, among
    other benefits in the past. It can certainly deny access to
    their public classrooms.
        Unelected Federal Judges should not interfere with rulings
    based on personal policy preferences not rooted in the
    Constitution. In fact, my legislation, H.R. 6225, the PAUSE
    Act, would freeze immigration until the Federal Government
    fixes longstanding illegal immigration problems ranging from
    birthright citizenship to issues such as the one we are
    discussing today under Plyler v. Doe.
        It is time we meet the moment to overturn Plyler v. Doe. It
    is time for Congress and the courts to address the glaring
    failures of this court decision and finally alleviate Texans
    and Americans alike from this burden.
        With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for her
    opening statement.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fifty years ago, Texas
    passed a law seeking to ban children who were not legally
    admitted to the country from our public schools, and to defund
    their education.
        The State argued that this ban was necessary to preserve
    its resources for educating its lawful residents and argued
    that these children were not persons under our Constitution.
    The Supreme Court disagreed.
        In 1982, the court struck down the Texas Statute in Plyler
    v. Doe, rejecting the argument that children did not count as
    persons entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
        The court also found Texas's economic arguments to be
    unconvincing, and the exclusion of undocumented children from
    public schools an unlikely and ineffective way to achieve the
    true underlying objective, of addressing and ultimately
    repelling an influx of undocumented immigrants.
        Even Conservative Chief Justice Burger, while rejecting the
    majority's reasoning wrote, ``it is senseless for an
    enlightened society to deprive any children, including illegal
    aliens, of an elementary education,'' and agreed that ``it
    would be folly and wrong to tolerate creation of a segment of
    society made up of illiterate persons.''
        He also noted that, ``the long-range cost of excluding any
    children from our public schools may well outweigh the costs of
    educating them.'' For a generation, the issue was deemed
    settled.
        Bigotry and bad ideas die hard. Now, at the urging of the
    Trump White House, the authors of Project 2025 and their
    allies, Texas and a few other States seek once again to
    enshrine bigotry and bad ideas into law.
        To do so, they have mounted a coordinated effort to
    overturn Plyler v. Doe, making the same arguments that the
    court previously rejected. If anything, the intervening years
    have put to rest the argument that the public education of
    undocumented children imposes a net economic burden on the
    States, or somehow harms public education and services offered
    to lawful residents.
        In fact, the overwhelming majority of credible studies from
    both conservative and mainstream entities, including the
    Congressional Budget Office, have consistently found that the
    net economic impact of immigration is overwhelmingly positive.
        Most recently, the Congressional Budget Office issued a
    finding that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants,
    generated a $14.5 trillion, that is trillion with a ``T,''
    fiscal surplus over the last 20 years.
        When one compares the tax contributions of those immigrants
    to the limited, very limited, public benefits that they
    consume, even in Texas, the purported subject of this hearing,
    the net fiscal impact of immigration during the 40-year Plyler
    period, including the cost of public education, has a net of
    $93 billion to the benefit of the State.
        In addition, we now have decades of data showing the public
    health, developmental, civic, humanitarian, and social impact
    of providing public education to immigrant children regardless
    of their legal status.
        No matter the rhetoric coming from the other side of the
    aisle, the fact is that our Republican colleagues have brought
    us here today to advocate for kicking kids out of school.
        Reversing Plyler v. Doe would mean that children as young
    as kindergarten and through high school, would be denied a
    basic education, left out of society, and held back from
    reaching their potential, and meaningfully contributing to
    America.
        This isn't just terrible education policy. It is extremely
    harmful to vulnerable children. It is also bad for our
    country's health, workforce, and economy.
        The Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe guaranteed
    equal access to free public K-12 education for all children
    living in the United States, regardless of their immigration
    status. The court recognized in Plyler that education provides
    the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically
    productive lives to the benefit of us all.
        In the 44 years since, the children who have benefited from
    these protections, including some who have since become
    citizens and legal permanent residents, have grown up to
    contribute immensely to our country.
        A report by FWD.us found that Plyler beneficiaries have
    driven economic growth by paying over $633 billion more in
    State and local taxes than their public education's cost,
    preventing over 700,000 U.S. citizen children from falling into
    poverty, increasing GDP by $2.71 trillion over their lifetimes.
    These are, again, the accomplishments of the Plyler
    beneficiaries.
        They have strengthened the workforce with over one million
    people filling U.S. jobs, and they have reduced healthcare
    costs by at least $28 billion since 1982. Additionally, other
    students have found that having immigrant children in K-12
    classrooms improved the academic outcomes for their U.S. born
    classmates, lifting up entire communities.
        Public schools are a crucial part of our social fabric.
    They are places where kids can learn, make friends, dream about
    their futures, and develop the skills they need to contribute
    to those futures and our society.
        Robbing some children of that foundation would wind up
    hurting all children and America as a whole. It is a cruel
    attempt to senselessly punish undocumented children for their
    parents' decisions, choices they had no role in.
        It is all based on a false assertion that giving
    undocumented children a public education is a burden on
    taxpayers. It bears dangerous similarity to other attempts to
    exclude children, including children with disabilities, from
    public education.
        According to a June 2025, analysis from Niskanen Center,
    the tax revenue from undocumented workers alone covers the
    annual cost of educating undocumented children. Of course, the
    effort is part of an ill-conceived effort to end immigration to
    this country, a country that is famously one formed by
    immigrants.
        It is also part of a larger war on children being
    prosecuted by this White House. A Right-wing effort to kick
    kids out of school is just another facet in the ongoing war
    that is being waged against American children, particularly the
    effort to undermine public education.
        President Trump and congressional Republicans' One Big Ugly
    Bill, ripped healthcare and food away from millions of kids
    when enacting the biggest cuts to Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP in
    our history.
        This Administration is attempting to undermine and erode
    vaccine science, at a time when measles and other preventable
    infectious disease outbreaks have killed American children.
    Republicans have made callous cuts to childhood cancer
    research, denying families the hope of a cure.
        This Administration has decimated the Department of
    Education, gone after funding for early childhood education
    programs like Head Start, frozen access to billions of dollars
    in funding for childcare and family assistance, and cut funding
    for community violence prevention.
        ICE is now targeting schools, previously protected areas,
    in its cruel, chaotic mass deportation efforts, leading to
    plummeting attendance and fear among entire school communities.
    Children have been detained in traumatizing conditions and used
    as bait by immigration enforcement agents to lure their
    parents.
        Some of us may remember growing up and learning about when
    in the Bible Jesus said, suffer the little children to come to
    me, rejecting the efforts of his disciples to punish their
    parents' efforts. Right now, instead of caring for the little
    children, our country and its leaders are shamefully turning
    their backs on those little children.
        We must firmly reject a worldview that only certain classes
    of children, those whose parents can afford to pay, are
    entitled to the blessings of liberty and the hope of a better
    future. Our kids are our future, and I want to do all we can to
    make sure that this future is a bright one for everyone's sake.
        This is not the direction that we need to go back here. It
    is fundamentally flawed. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I believe for the sake
    of time, that the Chair is going to yield, and I will recognize
    the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the
    witnesses for being here, and thanks for these wonderful kids
    in the front row who are keeping me very entertained.
        I wanted to start by invoking Tom Paine, who was an
    undocumented immigrant who came to this land in 1774, two years
    before the revolution, and wrote ``Common Sense,'' the pamphlet
    that ignited the American revolution.
        He said that, ``this land, if it lives up to its ideals and
    its promise, would become an asylum to humanity.'' Not an
    insane asylum, but a place of refuge for people seeking freedom
    from religious, political, intellectual, and economic
    persecution from all over the world.
        Also, in the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson, who was a
    descendant of a long line of undocumented immigrants, both on
    his mother's side and his father's side to the country, said
    that education would be central to democratic self-government
    and to the protection of liberty in our country. He said the
    Nation cannot be both ignorant and free. He said it was an
    impossibility.
        In the 20th century, the Supreme Court affirmed that public
    education is a Constitutional commitment in America for all
    children who are here. In Plyler v. Doe, the court held that
    denying children access to a public education based on their
    immigration status would violate the 14th Amendment Equal
    Protection Clause.
        Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan found that
    excluding undocumented children from public education would
    impose a lifetime of hardship. He said something like what the
    Constitution calls a taint of blood or a bill of attainder, a
    hereditary punishment for something over which the child had
    absolutely no control.
        Plyler did not place an undue financial burden on America.
    Rather, it has paid big dividends for our country. A recent
    analysis measured the costs and benefits of this decision and
    found that children who were able to go to school, thanks to
    Plyler, have contributed to the tune of billions of dollars
    more in State and local income taxes than the costs of their
    education.
        Of course, their classes were going to be happening anyway.
    Plyler has strengthened the workforce by allowing three
    quarters of adults who got an education, thanks to Plyler, to
    work in occupations that require a high school degree.
        It has also improved public health by making sure that
    every child in America gets the appropriate vaccinations.
        Is there anyone who really thinks that America would be
    stronger as a country if all the kids who got an education
    because of Plyler v. Doe had been forced to stay home or to
    stay in the streets during the day when their parents were
    working?
        Well, to distract America from the Iran war, which is now
    costing between $1-$2 billion a day, and which has already cost
    13 Americans their lives, and more than a thousand Iranians
    their lives, including 175 school children who perished in a
    bomb explosion at an all-girls school, to distract America from
    the Trump Administration's massive coverup of the Epstein files
    and the billion-dollar global trafficking conspiracy of young
    women, teenage girls, and children, our colleagues want to
    revisit a 44-year-old Supreme Court decision with the aim of
    kicking tens of thousands of kids out of their classes and out
    of their schools.
        Well, the Trump Administration's mass deportation campaign
    is already succeeding in denying kids, both noncitizens and
    citizens alike, access to school and education.
        In a survey of 693 educators across the country, when asked
    whether Federal immigration enforcement efforts were affecting
    students, 24 percent reported reduced student attendance at
    school and increased distraction or disengagement in class.
        Eighteen percent said reduced attendance is leading to
    declining student performance, of course, and 50 percent stated
    that the children in their schools have expressed great anxiety
    and fear about what is taking place in their communities.
        The harm is not concentrated solely in the city's most
    under siege either. West of the Twin Cities, in Wilmar,
    Minnesota, more than one in four students started missing
    classes after one student, with legal residency, was detained
    and held in custody for several days, and another student who
    is a U.S. citizen was stopped by ICE outside a district
    learning center.
        The school superintendent said, ``families of our Black and
    Brown students feared profiling and family separation even as
    legal residents, White families reported keeping children home
    due to anxieties about potential armed law enforcement activity
    taking place inside the schools.''
        Even when kids are showing up, immigration enforcement
    actions are dramatically affecting academic performance. Using
    data from a large urban school district in Florida, one of the
    10 biggest in the country, researchers found that the recent
    surge reduced test scores for both U.S.-born and foreign-born
    Spanish-speaking students, especially in higher poverty areas.
        It is hard to study, to learn, to think, to do homework, or
    to take exams when you are filled with fear and dread and
    anxiety. This reign of terror is part of the Administration's
    relentless campaign against children right now.
        In July last year, Trump signed into law his Big Beautiful
    Bill, which included the largest cuts to Medicaid, the
    Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, in our history. Over 37
    million children rely on Medicaid and CHIP to get healthcare,
    and nearly 15 million children rely on SNAP to get adequate
    nutrition.
        While denying children access to healthcare, the
    Administration is also making it harder for kids to stay
    healthy in the first place. After a confirmed 2,144 measles
    cases across 44 States in 2025, the U.S. stands to lose its
    measles-free designation.
        With this self-inflicted wound administered by Secretary
    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the country is already on track to soar
    past last year's total measles cases with more than 1,300 cases
    across 31 States, already confirmed as of March 12th. Of
    course, Mr. Chair, Texas has been particularly hard hit.
        The Secretary of Health and Human Services fired all 17
    members of its advisory committee on immunization practices,
    which provides recommendations for immunization in the U.S.
    Drop the number of recommended routine childhood vaccines
    putting children again, at risk of contracting preventable
    diseases.
        The Administration has gutted the Department of Education,
    which ensures nearly 26 million low-income students, and seven
    and a half million students with disabilities, to get
    meaningful access to educational opportunities. Has repeatedly
    threatened funding for Head Start, which provides childcare and
    early education to millions of low-income children every year.
        I would urge our colleagues to abandon this determination
    to make life harder for children in our country and instead
    join us in passing policy to deliver for America's kids.
        Together, we can make the child tax credit permanent,
    instead of making tax cuts permanent for the Nation's
    billionaires. We could expand access to healthcare and support
    nutrition for kids in need.
        We could protect the Department of Education to make sure
    kids in America get equal access to a quality education.
        We could take action to once and for all address the
    leading cause of death for children under 18 in the United
    States, the epidemic of gun violence in our country.
        For more than a decade now, Americans have strongly
    supported commonsense gun safety reform to ensure that guns
    stay out of hands of the people who do the most harm. No matter
    how many children lose their lives to gun violence, our
    colleagues maintain their oath to the gun lobby, and the
    absolute myth that the Second Amendment prevents reasonable gun
    safety legislation. It does not.
        The Democrats on this Committee take supporting and
    protecting every child in America seriously. I hope our
    colleagues will join us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I remind people this
    is a hearing on Plyler v. Doe.
        Now, without objection, all other opening statements will
    be included in the record. We will now introduce today's
    witnesses. Does the Chair--
        Mr. Jordan. Well, I was just curious, the Ranking Member
    said, I think his opening sentence was, he said ``Thomas Paine
    was an illegal immigrant.'' My understanding was Mr. Paine was
    born in the UK, came to America, then a British colony in 1774.
    I was just struggling to figure out how he was an illegal
    immigrant.
        Mr. Raskin. Oh, I didn't say he was an illegal immigrant. I
    said he was an undocumented immigrant. Just like Thomas
    Jefferson's family was. Most of our ancestors did not arrive
    here with documents.
        Mr. Jordan. OK. OK. Well, big deal. OK. Got it.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, that does appear to be a big deal to
    people on your side of the aisle, because you don't want to
    educate kids because they don't have the right documents.
        Mr. Roy. It is the time of the Chair.
        Mr. Jordan. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. The Chair is going to yield back. I would just
    note, it is not undocumented, because he was within the
    colonies of England. He was a citizen of England.
        All right. Without objection, all other opening statements
    will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's
    witnesses.
        Ms. Mandy Drogan. Ms. Drogan is a Senior Fellow with the
    Government Reform and Oversight Coalition at the Texas Public
    Policy Foundation. Her work focuses on K-12 education. She
    previously worked at the American Federation for Children.
        Mr. Matt O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien is the Deputy Executive
    Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He
    previously served as an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge,
    Chief of the National Security Division of U.S. Citizenship and
    Immigration Services Fraud Detection and National Security
    Directorate, and in other senior roles in USCIS ICE, and what
    was then known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
        Mr. James Rogers. Mr. Rogers is a Senior Counsel at the
    American First Legal Foundation, where he litigates matters
    involving border security, election integrity, parental rights,
    and constitutional administrative law. He previously served as
    Senior Litigation Counsel in the Arizona Attorney General's
    Solicitor General's Office.
        Mr. Thomas Saenz. Mr. Saenz is the President and General
    Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
    Fund. He previously served as counsel to then Los Angeles Mayor
    Antonio Villaraigosa.
        We thank our witnesses for appearing today and we will
    begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your
    right hand?
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative. Thank you. You may be seated.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in five minutes.
        Ms. Drogan, you may begin, and I will remind each of you to
    turn your microphones on before you begin your testimony. Ms.
    Drogan, you may begin and you have five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF MANDY DROGAN

        Ms. Drogan. Chair, Ranking Member, and the Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
    adverse effects of Plyler v. Doe, and how subsequent Federal
    policy, particularly the Obama Administration's ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter, has created a contradiction harming
    students, schools, and communi-
    ties.
        Plyler v. Doe held that States cannot deny illegal
    immigrant children access to public education. Texas has
    fulfilled that obligation.
        Our Constitution requires a free public education system,
    and Texas has built one of the Nation's most robust
    accountability systems in the Nation.
        Our A-F accountability system evaluates schools based on
    standardized test performance, graduation rates, and college
    readiness indicators. These ratings have real consequences.
        They can trigger State interventions, leadership changes,
    campus restructuring, and school closures. In recent years,
    roughly 16.6 percent of Texas districts have received a D or F
    rating.
        The ratings strike major policy decisions like student
    funding, and it relies on accurate demographic data. Federal
    policy prevents States from collecting one key category, the
    illegal immigration status of K-12 students.
        The FWD.us estimates that approximately 111,000 students in
    Texas are illegal immigrant children. This restriction does not
    come directly from Plyler v. Doe.
        Instead, it stems largely from a 2011 ``Dear Colleague''
    letter issued by the Departments of Justice and Education,
    which warned that asking about immigration status could
    discourage enrollment and create a chilling effect.
        The ``Dear Colleague'' letter is the agency guidance. It is
    not a law passed by Congress, and it is not required in Plyler
    or by the Supreme Court.
        Congress should clarify that it cannot prevent States from
    collecting necessary data to educate students. Every effective
    education policy relies on demographic data.
        Schools identify student populations to provide targeted
    support, whether it is for low-income students, English
    learners, or students with special disabilities. They track
    things like race, gender, attendance, discipline, and even
    parental incarceration.
        This data is used to identify needs and measure outcomes.
    It is not used to stigmatize students. It is universally
    accepted that schools must have it to identify student needs,
    measure outcomes for the students, the schools, and the entire
    education system.
        Illegal immigration status is the one characteristic
    schools are effectively barred for measuring. States are asked
    to address complex challenges, while remaining blind to a key
    factor influencing outcomes.
        This contradiction undermines the very logic of Plyler
    itself. If illegal immigrant children face serious
    disadvantage, as the court has recognized, schools must be able
    to identify them to provide appropriate supports.
        Evidence suggests illegal immigrant students face
    challenges way beyond language barriers, including higher
    absenteeism, mobility, interrupted schooling, and greater
    educational needs.
        A study in social science and medicine found that 97.4
    percent of Central American and Mexican migrant children
    experienced at least one traumatic event before entry, and 44
    percent showed psychological or behavioral concerns. Texas
    medical experts report that many require significant mental
    health support due to sexual and violent trauma experience
    during migration.
        These realities affect accountability systems and other
    students as well. Schools must determine whether performance
    challenges stem from language barriers, trauma, or interrupted
    education.
        Policymakers cannot answer these questions on how illegal
    immigrant students perform as compared to other groups. We see
    the consequences all across Texas.
        Campuses receiving failing ratings for five consecutive
    years, face closure, restructuring, and State takeover.
    Recently, districts such as Fort Worth, Beaumont, Connally, and
    Lake Worth ISD have faced such risks after six campuses
    repeatedly receive failing grades.
        These campuses share strikingly similar characteristics.
    Between 80-97 percent of the students come from low-income
    households compared to 60 percent statewide. At five of the
    campuses, 64-92 percent of students are considered at risk of
    dropping out.
        A Stanford education researcher, Beth Schuler explained,
    ``I don't think we want to lose sight of the fact that
    demographic composition of a school system is the thing that is
    going to be most predictive of variation and performance and
    outcomes.''
        When schools struggle or close, communities are disrupted.
    Enrollment declines, families move, and local economies suffer.
        In short, the downstream effects of Plyler v. Doe, affect
    every single student in the State of Texas. In the schools and
    in the community, it is not just the illegal immigrant
    students.
        Congress should require the Department of Education and
    Justice to issue new guidance clarifying the 2011 ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter, can't prevent States from collecting data
    on illegal immigration or legal immigration status of students.
        Congress should also pass legislation allowing States to
    collect immigration status, both legal and illegal. If States
    are required to educate illegal immigrant students, they must
    be allowed to identify the student population status to fully
    understand and address the adverse effects of Plyler v. Doe.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Drogan follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Drogan. Mr. O'Brien, you may begin
    and I remind you to turn your microphone on.

                       STATEMENT OF MATT O'BRIEN

        Mr. O'Brien. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. The Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, rewrote
    rather than interpreted the Equal Protection Clause.
        By transforming a Texas funding provision into a nationwide
    mandate, the court required States to provide free K-12
    education to children who have no legal right to be in the
    United States.
        The majority did not rely on established constitutional
    doctrine. Instead, it imported its own policy preferences,
    particularly concerns about illiteracy and social mobility, and
    constructed a novel, heightened standard of review that the
    court itself admitted does not ordinarily apply to nonsuspect
    classes or nonfundamental interests.
        The result was an act of judicial legislation that intrudes
    on Congress's plenary authority over immigration, restricts
    State control over limited educational resources, and imposes
    heavy fiscal and operational burdens on already struggling
    school systems.
        For more than a century, the Supreme Court has consistently
    recognized that immigration is a uniquely Federal domain
    entrusted to the political branches. Congress may draw
    distinctions between citizens, lawful residents, and those here
    in violation of Federal law.
        Indeed, the court has repeatedly affirmed that Congress has
    no constitutional obligation to extend public benefits to
    individuals who lack lawful status.
        When Texas in 1975, enacted a statute limiting the use of
    State funds to educate only children legally admitted to the
    United States, it acted squarely within this constitutional
    framework.
        Nevertheless, the statute was challenged under the 14th
    Amendment, and the Plyler majority ultimately struck it down,
    not on legal grounds, but on speculative policy judgments about
    social equity and long-term socioeconomic outcomes.
        The court acknowledged that illegal aliens are not a
    suspect class, and that education is not a fundamental right.
    It proceeded to treat both as if they were, devising a bespoke
    standard of review applicable only to the facts before it.
        This approach was inconsistent with precedent, inconsistent
    with the Constitution's text, and inconsistent with the
    judiciary's proper role. Under ordinary rational basis review,
    a State may allocate its resources in any manner reasonably
    related to a legitimate governmental interest.
        The Plyler court replaced that deferential standard with
    what legal scholars call rational basis with bite, forcing
    Texas to justify its policy as though a fundamental right were
    at stake.
        In doing so, the court substituted its own policy views for
    those of the legislature, and entered an area, immigration
    policy and resource allocation, where the Constitution
    explicitly entrusts authority to elected officials.
        The consequences of this judicial overreach have been
    substantial. Plyler effectively created a Federalized unfunded
    mandate requiring States to provide free K-12 education to all
    children lacking lawful presence.
        Today's State and local governments collectively spend tens
    of billions of dollars each year to comply with this mandate,
    even as many public schools struggle with overcrowding, limited
    resources, and declining performance.
        Estimates indicate that between 1.9-2.2 million illegal
    alien children are now enrolled in America's public schools,
    many of whom arrive with significant educational needs that
    require additional staffing, specialized instruction, and
    expanded support services. These obligations fall squarely on
    State and local budgets, which already devote more resources to
    K-12 education than any other expenditure category.
        In sum, Plyler v. Doe represents a dramatic departure from
    constitutional principles, established doctrine, and the proper
    limits of the judicial role. By elevating policy considerations
    above legal analysis, the court imposed long-lasting financial
    and operational burdens on States and localities while
    undermining democratic accountability.
        Rather than upholding the Constitution, Plyler exemplifies
    the risks of judicial lawmaking and has had enduring negative
    consequences for both constitutional governance and the
    effectiveness of the American public education.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Rogers, you may begin.

                       STATEMENT OF JAMES ROGERS

        Mr. Rogers. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlan, and the
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this invitation. In
    1982, the Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe, that States must
    provide free public K-12 education to children illegally
    present in the United States.
        That decision was wrong. It should be overruled. Even in
    the meantime, States are not without tools to address it.
        Plyler presented the court with a straightforward
    Constitutional question. Under the Equal Protection Clause,
    courts apply strict scrutiny when a law discriminates against a
    suspect class such as based on race or religion, or burdens of
    fundamental rights such as the right to freedom of speech or
    religion.
        Laws rarely survive strict scrutiny review. For everything
    else, courts apply rational basis review, which is a permissive
    standard that laws almost always survive. The standard of
    review that courts apply usually determines the outcome.
        As Mr. O'Brien acknowledged, the Plyler majority conceded
    that the heightened standard of strict scrutiny did not apply.
    It acknowledged expressly that illegal aliens are not a suspect
    class, and that education is not a fundamental right.
        Having made those concessions, the court was legally
    obligated to apply rational basis review under which Texas's
    law would easily have survived. Instead, the majority invented
    a novel substantial State interest test found nowhere in prior
    precedent, then used that invented standard to strike the law
    down.
        As Chief Justice Burger wrote in dissent, ``if ever a court
    was guilty of an unabashedly result oriented approach, this
    case is a prime example.''
        The decision was a close one, with only five justices in
    the majority and four justices dissenting. The dissent's core
    critique was that the majority had ignored the requirements of
    the Constitution and was substituting its own policy
    preferences for those of the Texas legislature.
        It was trying to address a perceived failure of Congress to
    deal with illegal immigration, rather than allowing the
    political branches of government to fulfill their functions.
        The Constitution Burger wrote, ``does not make Justices
    into platonic guardians authorized to strike down laws that do
    not meet the court's standards of desirable social policy.''
        The dissent also correctly pointed out that it is rational
    for a State to conclude that it does not have the same
    responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very
    presence in the country is illegal.
        In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which
    overruled Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court articulated five tests
    for whether prior precedent should be overruled. Plyler fails
    everyone.
        It was egregiously wrong from the start. The majority
    itself conceded that prior court precedent required that the
    Texas law be upheld.
        Plyler's reasoning is thin, lacking any grounding in
    constitutional text or history. Its substantial State interest
    standard is unworkable. No court has coherently defined it in
    40 years.
        It has distorted immigration federalism by chilling
    legitimate State policy choices, and it implicates no concrete
    transactional reliance interest of the kind that the law is
    designed to protect.
        Critically, Plyler's own majority acknowledged that
    ``undocumented status coupled with some articulable Federal
    policy, might enhance State authority,'' and thus, justify the
    type of policy that the Plyler court had rejected.
        Congress has since provided exactly that policy. The
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
    of 1996, or PRWORA, declared it a compelling government
    interest to deny public benefits to illegal aliens, and it
    barred them from Federal public benefits.
        The premise on which Plyler rested, thus no longer exists.
    Some States have started considering adopting laws that would
    bar illegal alien children from receiving free public
    education.
        They are trying to create a vehicle for the Supreme Court
    to reconsider Plyler and overturn it. Congress can accelerate
    reconsideration by enacting legislation explicitly authorizing
    States to condition free K-12 enrollment unlawful presence.
        Even under Plyler, meaningful tools remain. States can
    condition free public education on residency and then define
    residency as requiring lawful presence.
        Plyler bars denial based on immigration status, but a State
    that conditions enrollment on legal residency raises a
    fundamentally different question. States can also require
    districts to collect and publicly report the fiscal costs of
    illegal alien enrollment, building the evidentiary record for
    future litigation.
        Finally, they can restrict supplemental programs beyond the
    basic K-12 curriculum, and deny in-State post-secondary
    tuition, in compliance with Federal law.
        In conclusion, as Chief Justice Burger wrote in his Plyler
    dissent, ``the Constitution does not provide a cure for every
    social ill.'' The court should correct its 1982 error.
        In the meantime, the States and Congress can take action to
    keep illegal aliens from taking advantage of the generosity of
    the American taxpayer. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Mr. Rogers, thank you. Mr. Saenz, you may begin.

                      STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. SAENZ

        Mr. Saenz. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Hon. Members. My
    name is Thomas Saenz, and I have been for 17 years now, the
    President and General Counsel of MALDEF, the Mexican American
    Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
        I am proud as the current head of MALDEF, that my
    predecessors were the legal representatives for the plaintiffs
    in Plyler v. Doe, the first of a number of cases consolidated
    and coming before the Supreme Court in 1982.
        It is important to note that the Plyler v. Doe decision was
    the product of a conservative Supreme Court. Indeed, four of
    the five justices in the majority, including the author of the
    opinion, William Brennan, were appointed by Republican
    Presidents.
        In addition, it is important to note that the swing
    Justice, if you will, Lewis Powell, has impeccable conservative
    credentials, and he is clearly the Justice whose decision ended
    up being the decision in Plyler. He was the fifth vote.
        It is also important to note as not often remembered, that
    while this Court split five to four on the Constitutional
    issue, the court was unanimous in its conclusion that the Texas
    law struck down was bad public policy.
        I say that because Chief Justice Warren Burger, who wrote
    on behalf of all the dissenters who joined his opinion in full,
    including the soon to be Chief Justice, Conservative William
    Rehnquist, on behalf of all of them, he stated that this Texas
    policy was a bad public policy. He called it folly.
        It is important to keep that in mind as you review the
    basis of the majority decision in Plyler. In Plyler, the
    majority simply applied rational basis, a standard recognized
    by the Supreme Court previously and all the way up to date, as
    a basis for evaluating legislation that singles out a
    particular group of persons for exclusion from a public benefit
    in this case, excluding minor children who are undocumented
    from receiving public education.
        In applying rational basis, the majority considered a
    number of factors. Among them are factors that have clearly not
    changed in the 44 years since Plyler was decided.
        First, the fact is, as the court noted then, many of the
    students who are undocumented today, and who would be deprived
    of a basic public education were the Texas law to be revived,
    many of those students will remain in the country indefinitely
    or permanently, and will adjust their status to that of either
    lawful, permanent resident or naturalized U.S. citizen.
        As such, they will be expected, as Brennan noted, ``to
    contribute to our economy, to our society, and to our
    government.'' Their ability to do so if deprived of a basic
    public education, would be taken away from them.
        Second, the court did recognize that public education is
    expensive, and that is the case today as well. However, despite
    that fact, public education is perhaps the government service
    that receives the highest levels of support throughout the
    country.
        Why is that? Because that expense is an investment. It is
    an investment that pays off. Having these children in school
    with a basic education when they become citizens or lawful
    permanent residents, and are contributing to the economy, pays
    off much more than the costs of the education.
        The billions, and indeed over time, trillions of dollars
    more into the economy, into government, through tax payments,
    and through immeasurable benefits such as patents, innovations,
    and improved service throughout the economy.
        The court also recognized that these children are not
    responsible for their status in this country. They are minors.
        We are talking about elementary and secondary school
    children who came to the country as a result of decisions by
    their parents. That is still true today.
        Despite the slight increase in unaccompanied minors, the
    fact is the vast, vast majority of undocumented students did
    not come to the United States on their own.
        Finally, the court recognized, and I note here, that Lewis
    Powell's concurrence particularly focused on what would happen
    if the Texas law were implemented. It would leave thousands and
    thousands of children on the street during the daytime rather
    than being in school.
        While the Plyler decision didn't explore that as deeply as
    it might have, the fact is, that eliminating Plyler would
    threaten the continuance of public education.
        Why? Because kids out of school have a tendency to attract
    their peers to leave school as well. It will start with their
    siblings, as a result of the phenomenon of mixed status
    families where older children are undocumented, but younger
    children are birthright citizens.
        It will extend beyond the families to peers, and
    ultimately, it will be impossible to enforce truancy laws,
    because any child who doesn't want to be in school will know to
    simply say, I am undocumented, something that any truancy
    officer would be unable to disprove.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Saenz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Saenz. I now recognize my friend
    from California, Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few weeks ago, the
    President put a very simple proposition to the Democrats, do
    you believe that the first duty of the Federal Government is to
    defend American citizens and not illegal immigrants?
        Not one of our Democratic colleagues supported that
    proposition, not one. We can plainly see that attitude on full
    display at this hearing, in fact, in any hearing where the
    subject presents itself.
        I have never understood the logic of Plyler, which seems to
    be that illegal immigrants are both entitled to taxpayer paid
    benefits, but at the same time are subject to deportation.
        That makes no sense. If they have no right to be here, I
    don't understand how they have a claim on taxpayer benefits.
        The other foundation of Plyler seems to be, well, don't
    worry about it, there aren't that many of them. Well, that
    might have been true in 1973. It is certainly not true today.
        It is indisputable that this is diverting billions of
    dollars of school funds away from educating American citizens
    and legal residents. In California alone, taxpayers are paying
    about $3 billion a year for this purpose.
        That is $3 billion of education funds that are not reaching
    American citizens and legal immigrants. Imagine the outrage
    from the Democrats if we propose cutting $3 billion from
    California's public schools, but that is exactly what their
    open borders policies have done.
        Now, we heard Ms. Scanlon tell us that this is good for
    students and good for taxpayers. I wonder if these people ever
    listen to themselves.
        We are entitled to ask, how have our public schools fared
    since this, the largest illegal mass migration and history
    under the Democrats? Are students doing better or worse?
        Ms. Drogan, what does the data actually tell us?
        Mr. Roy. Microphone.
        Ms. Drogan. The data actually tells us when we are hearing
    numbers of a couple of thousand, that is completely inaccurate.
        Even if we are using a Left-leaning pro-immigration
    organization that Ranking Member Scanlon quoted FWD.us, they
    say that in Texas alone, there is at least 111,000 students.
    This obviously is billions of dollars.
        We can look at the data and see since 2015, with the
    unaccompanied minors that have been released, if we use the TEA
    PEIMS data that tells us how much we are spending, it is
    $18,125 per student across the State of Texas on average. Of
    course, doing English second language and whatnot costs more.
        If we use that number, we can see that we are already
    approaching $2 billion at $1.78 billion. We could also use the
    Huffines Liberty Institute's research that went back over a
    course of 10 years to see the amount of money that we were
    spending in Texas.
        They found that it is roughly eight percent on illegal
    immigrant students. According to our data last year in--
        Mr. McClintock. Somehow this is supposed to be helping our
    students.
        Ms. Drogan. Yes.
        Mr. McClintock. I don't understand that logic at all.
        Ms. Drogan. Yes. It is about $8 billion a year if we use
    their data.
        Mr. McClintock. On my first trip to the border, I spoke
    with a border patrol officer who related a conversation he had
    just had with the mother who would take her eight-year-old son
    on the dangerous trip to cross our border illegally.
        He asked her why she would expose her child to such danger?
    She answered, ``well, to get him a good education and get away
    from the gangs.''
        The border patrol agent said, well, ``don't you understand
    those gangs are already here, and your child will be placed in
    a classroom where he doesn't understand the language or the
    culture, and he will look to those very gangs for his
    acceptance?''
        Every day we hear of cases in which illegals with criminal
    records or gang affiliations are found in our public schools.
    There is a story in the news today coming out of Fairfax
    County, just a few miles from here, of a 19-year-old illegal
    alien from El Salvador who was groping young girls for months,
    before the district took any disciplinary actions.
        Mr. O'Brien, have there been any studies of how many
    illegals with criminal records or criminal activities are in
    our schools today?
        Mr. O'Brien. I don't believe so, only because it is
    virtually impossible to get the relevant data. We conducted
    studies that indicated that illegal aliens commit crimes at a
    rate anywhere from two to three times higher than citizens and
    lawful immigrants.
        I would presume--
        Mr. McClintock. There have been extensive studies presented
    to our Immigration Subcommittee on that very point. The
    Democrats love to claim, oh, there is no higher criminal rate
    among illegals. Well, that is completely belied by the facts.
        Mr. Rogers, what makes you think that the Supreme Court is
    inclined to reverse this decision?
        Mr. Rogers. Well, the Dobbs decision set out a very clear
    standard of five factors that can be used to evaluate whether
    prior precedent was wrongly decided and should be reevaluated.
        Like I said in my testimony, all five of those factors,
    Plyler fails all of them. Applying the standard that they have
    set out, Plyler is ripe for a reconsideration.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Saenz, I want to
    return to something that the gentleman from California said.
    Did the Supreme Court say that a family could not be removed
    from the country if their noncitizen children were in a public
    school?
        Are they still deportable if the family is not here
    lawfully?
        Mr. Saenz. The way children tend to be deported, as I think
    you know, Congress Member, is a parent who is deported and has
    to make a decision whether to take the children with them, or
    to leave them the custody of someone else. That is the way
    deportation works for the Plyler class that we are talking
    about.
        It is also important to note in response to what the member
    from California said, ``the undocumented, many of them, have a
    basis to remain in this country.'' If they were actually placed
    in deportation proceedings, they would have defenses available
    to them, and many of them will, through that process,
    ultimately stay in the country permanently.
        You can't say that all them--
        Mr. Raskin. Well, what would one of those be? You mean, if
    they were seeking asylum, for example?
        Mr. Saenz. No. If they were to seek some suspension of
    deportation because of longstanding ties in this country,
    because of continued connection in this country, or because
    they simply have a basis for adjusting relationship to someone
    else that they didn't have previously or didn't know provided a
    basis.
        Mr. Raskin. My point is a little bit different, which is,
    there is nothing in Plyler v. Doe, which gives anybody the
    right to stay in America if they don't already have such a
    right.
        You are positing that in some cases they might have such a
    right. There is nothing in Plyler v. Doe that changes
    immigration law.
        All the Supreme Court said in Plyler v. Doe was, as long as
    this family is in America, the children have a right to be in
    public school and should not be out on the street or kept at
    home or what have you.
        Am I reading that correctly?
        Mr. Saenz. That is absolutely correct. This is all about
    students who are here, and therefore have to be somewhere
    during the day, they should be in public school.
        Mr. Raskin. The Supreme Court never altered anybody's
    immigration status.
        Mr. Saenz. Not at all. Not at all.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. What is your response to Plyler's critics
    who say that this places a massive fiscal burden on the
    country?
        Mr. Saenz. It is untrue, because you have to look at both
    sides of the ledger. What we are talking about is an investment
    that we make in any child who is in public education.
        That is, the payoff comes when they are able to participate
    in the workforce. In many college educations requiring
    professions and the like, a recent study points out that a
    large number of the recipients of services under Plyler, end up
    in positions that require a college degree.
        Beyond that, you have to recognize that these are also
    taxpayers. These families are taxpayers like their neighbors.
        Their status does not change the fact that they pay sales
    taxes, property taxes if they have property, and income taxes
    if there is an income.
        Mr. Raskin. They are not in the social security system,
    right?
        Mr. Saenz. Exactly. They are not eligible, as you know, and
    as has been pointed out by others on this panel. They are
    paying those taxes from what they are able to earn.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. In ordinary times, if we are not in a time
    of anti-immigrant hysteria and nativism, people have accepted
    this for a half a century, right?
        It has not seemed like a big deal that they--
        Mr. Saenz. I would argue, Congress Member, it is not a big
    deal now for most of the people out in the public. There really
    are not huge numbers of bills moving forward in our
    legislature. Yes, bills get introduced.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes.
        Mr. Saenz. When legislators start doing their job and look
    at what the consequences are of actually attempting to
    implement a law like the one struck down in Plyler, they
    realize this is not wise public policy, and they tend to back
    away from it. There is no clamoring to change Plyler v. Doe
    after 44 years.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes. In the brief colloquy I had with the Chair
    at the beginning, we talked a little bit about my reference to
    the first great generation of revolutionary patriots, people
    like Tom Paine or Thomas Jefferson, as undocumented or the
    descendants of undocumented people. I didn't think there was
    anything controversial about that.
        I suppose from the perspective of Native Americans who were
    here long before anybody else, everybody was undocumented at
    that point. Have we not had a fluid sense of the border?
        Now, we need to have actual laws that exist, but this has
    been part of the law that kids who are here get to go to school
    here, at least until their family is deported, right?
        Mr. Saenz. Absolutely. This is as well established as much
    of immigration law, because we didn't actually control our
    Southern border until the middle of the 20th century.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, that was Mexico, right, until the 1840s
    and the 1850s with the annexation. It was in 1845 in Texas and
    California, a little bit after that.
        What is the bottom line then? Is all this really headed to
    try to get a very Right-leaning Supreme Court to overturn
    Plyler v. Doe? Is that what this is about?
        Mr. Saenz. I think that is the ultimate goal. There is an
    impediment, which is this is now part of Federal immigration
    policy.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to note that
    our annual debt has now gone past $39 trillion. I yield my time
    to the Chair from Texas.
        Mr. Roy. Well, I appreciate my friend from Kentucky,
    notably wearing his debt clock, where he is announcing to the
    world that we are now cracking $39 trillion.
        I would note that there are a lot of reasons why, and this
    is one of them, among many. That we continue to have this
    fanciful notion that we can just say anybody can come into the
    United States, and that it doesn't have an impact on our
    overall budget.
        That the idea that it is like somehow, oh, there is this
    magic economic driver and economic creation of revenue that is
    offsetting the cost of our government services, programs,
    welfare, education, crime, and hospitals, that somehow that
    magically pays for itself. It is absolutely insane.
        Mr. Saenz, there are approximately 2.4 billion children in
    the world under the age of 18. Can they all come to the United
    States and be educated?
        Mr. Saenz. Obviously not. Those who are here have a right
    now for 44 years--
        Mr. Roy. Wait now, wait, how about a billion?
        Mr. Saenz. To an education.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Saenz, how about a billion? Can a billion
    children around the world come to the United States and get a
    free education?
        Mr. Saenz. Obviously not.
        Mr. Roy. OK. How about 500 million?
        Mr. Saenz. These are matters of capacity of--
        Mr. Roy. One hundred million?
        Mr. Saenz. It is a matter of the capacity of our country,
    Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. Ten million? When we are God-fearing, Jesus-loving
    people, 10 million people around the world can come here to the
    United States.
        Mr. Saenz. Far as I know, this country actually has
    religious pluralism and respects all religions. I object to
    your question in that sense. I am not going to give you a
    number, Mr. Chair. The simple fact is that--
        Mr. Roy. You are not going to give me a number? You are not
    going to give me a number because--
        Mr. Saenz. There is a capacity of--
        Mr. Roy. You are going to give me a number because you know
    this is fantastic unicorn nonsense.
        Mr. Saenz. I am not going to give you a number to give you
    the YouTube moment you are looking for, because--
        Mr. Roy. This is unicorn nonsense. Well, you know what?
    This is an absolute aberration, because you know precisely what
    is going on.
        You think that you can make policy via the court, that you
    can somehow establish that there is the right to come here to
    the United States and get a free education.
        When posed with a question, how many people can come here,
    you know there is not an answer. Because right now, the people
    of Texas are the ones left holding the bag.
        Ms. Drogan--
        Mr. Saenz. That is false, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. Ms. Drogan--
        Mr. Saenz. You don't know me.
        Mr. Roy. Ms. Drogan--
        Mr. Saenz. I am not running for office.
        Mr. Roy. It is my time, and I am the Chair, whether or not
    I am running for office, is irrelevant.
        Mr. Saenz. You posed a question--
        Mr. Roy. The fact of the matter is Mr. Saenz--
        Mr. Saenz. You posed a question, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. The fact of the matter is Mr. Saenz--
        Mr. Saenz. You accuse me--
        Mr. Roy. I am the Chair of this Committee, Mr. Saenz, and
    it is my time. The fact of the matter is, the people of Texas,
    the people of Texas, Ms. Drogan, are the ones left holding the
    bag.
        Ms. Drogan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Roy. Are the taxpayers in Texas paying education for
    illegal alien children to the detriment of American citizen
    children?
        Ms. Drogan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Roy. Can you expand on that? We talked about it before
    on the numbers. We have had over 100 and something thousand
    unaccompanied alien children.
        How about the fact that we have got, for every English
    learner, Texas schools receive $616 or $950 for those enrolled
    in a dual-language program. How much does that cost?
        Ms. Drogan. About $830 million, sir.
        Mr. Roy. How much money do we get from the Federal
    Government for that?
        Ms. Drogan. It would be $8.1 million.
        Mr. Roy. The Texas taxpayers are the ones left holding the
    bag on that number alone, correct?
        Ms. Drogan. Yes, sir. Ninety percent of it.
        Mr. Roy. What is the impact for the average school district
    out there that is dealing with the fact that you have illegal
    alien children that are being educated on the back of the
    taxpayers?
        Ms. Drogan. It is massive. That is what we were talking
    about, is this isn't just about the illegal children. It is
    also about the entire system.
        We have accountability systems. These students, I pointed
    out several districts, Lake Worth ISD, 43.6 percent of them are
    English learners. This is a crushing barrier.
        It goes between 30-70 percent that are English learners in
    these districts that are slated for takeover. That doesn't just
    impact the illegal students in the schools, it impacts the
    entire school.
        American citizens who are losing out on resources, their
    teachers are being forced to try and do Google Translate on
    their phones. All these things obviously impact the total
    education system.
        The taxpayers are left holding the bag for it.
        Mr. Roy. Somebody asserted earlier that there is nobody
    clamoring in the State of Texas to deal with this issue. First,
    do you believe that to be true?
        Ms. Drogan. That is 100 percent false.
        Mr. Roy. Correct. I hear about it all the time across the
    State of Texas, since I do crisscross the State of Texas quite
    a lot.
        The reality is, with respect to that question, do we have
    the information or the data for the average American to
    understand the extent to which forced education of illegal
    alien children is having an impact on their kids, their school
    district, their bond issuances, their property taxes?
        Are we prohibited from having that information right now?
        Ms. Drogan. Yes, we are prohibited from having that
    information. It has created a ``chilling effect'' on districts.
        I hear from teachers, superintendents, and leaders all
    across the State of Texas, they want this data collected so
    that we can have a comprehensive view of how this impacts
    students and taxpayers in our education system as a whole.
        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Drogan. I will now recognize Mr.
    Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, Mr. O'Brien, you
    made a comment that the statistics show that illegal
    immigrants, or undocumented immigrants, committed crime at a
    higher rate than other folks.
        I have had statistics, and we have talked about them as a
    Committee, that are just the opposite, and they came from
    Texas. Where are your statistics from?
        Mr. O'Brien. The statistics that we looked at were from the
    SCAAP, which is the State Criminal Alien Apprehension Program.
        Mr. Cohen. The SCAAP?
        Mr. O'Brien. It is a Federal program that reimburses States
    for the cost of incarcerating anyone who is not a citizen who
    is present in the United States, particularly illegal aliens.
        Mr. Cohen. Do you have a copy of that study with you so I
    can take a look at it?
        Mr. O'Brien. I don't have it with me. We can get you a copy
    of it.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, just to inform you, the Justice Department
    did a study a few years ago in Texas and said that undocumented
    immigrants have a much lesser rate of committing offenses than
    other citizens.
        Other statistics show that as well. They are less likely to
    commit offenses. Most of them don't get out and are afraid
    right now to get out of their houses, because they are afraid
    that they will get shot by ICE, or taken to some detention camp
    and held for an unlimited amount of time, even if they have
    their little hats on and are five years old.
        They take them to Texas and put them away. That is not good
    for children. That is not good for America. That is not good
    for anybody. That is anti-American.
        If you show me your statistics and get them to me, I will
    look at them. I will send you the Justice Department statistics
    that show that illegal or undocumented immigrants do not commit
    crimes at a higher rate.
        Mr. O'Brien. Well, we certainly can get that to you. In my
    experience as an immigration judge and a trial attorney with
    ICE, it would be indicated differently. My experience--
        Mr. Cohen. Your experience is not statistics. It is your
    experience. It is very subjective. I would like to see the
    objective.
        Mr. O'Brien. I think the statistics are based on the
    experience of people like me.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Saenz, you were trying to say something in
    response to Mr. Roy, and he cut you off. You are not running
    for office, I understand that. Could you tell me what you were
    about to say?
        Mr. Saenz. I was going to say that in fact, the number of
    students who are in school as a result of Plyler v. Doe, is
    dictated by our immigration policies in effect.
        We can talk about the billions of people out in the world,
    but it has no reflection on what is happening in this country.
    As you earlier mentioned, we are talking about students who are
    here.
        As earlier was mentioned by your colleague, actually, we
    are talking about students who are here, their families are
    here, don't know how long they will be here, but they are here,
    maybe here indefinitely or permanently. That is the class of
    students we are talking about who benefited from Plyler v. Doe.
        Not only they benefit, their classmates benefit, and all
    society benefits, because they then have the skills to
    ultimately contribute to our economy in important ways to the
    tune of billions, ultimately trillions of dollars.
        Mr. Cohen. I think Ms. Drogan was giving some testimony
    that undocumented or illegals have worse grades and are more
    likely to drop out and cause problems.
        Ms. Drogan. Well, the reality is that--
        Mr. Cohen. Excuse me, Mr. Drogan, I wasn't asking you a
    question.
        Ms. Drogan. Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry.
        Mr. Cohen. That is not a problem. Just, Mr. Saenz, do you
    remember her saying that?
        Mr. Saenz. It is important to note that we don't have data
    about undocumented students and their grades. What we do know,
    is that so many of those who were undocumented in elementary
    and secondary school, do go on to higher education.
        These are the students who now have DACA, and their younger
    colleagues who have been rendered ineligible for DACA, but
    these are the ones who are contributing to our economy, who
    frankly, through their contributions in healthcare and in other
    fields, saved us during the pandemic.
        That is what we are talking about, not students who are low
    performing. It is important to note, because there is a lot of
    conflation of this, that when you talk about English learners,
    you are not talking about undocumented students.
        The vast majority of noncitizens in this country are not
    undocumented. They have some other status, lawful permanent
    residents or other, and that comprises a portion of the English
    learner population.
        Frankly, a large portion of the English learner population
    is United States citizens born in this country, who have every
    right to stay permanently, and who are in school, but come to
    school with a need to acquire English fluency at an academic
    level that they didn't acquire in their homes prior to coming
    to school.
        Similarly, the Chair mentioned in his opening remarks, the
    Latino population of a particular school district. Latino does
    not equal undocumented, not by any means. The Latino population
    is overwhelmingly U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
    in this country.
        Talking about increased numbers of Latino students in a
    school, is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about
    here, which is the experience of undocumented students in
    public schools.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I yield back to the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the Ranking Member for some
    UCs.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a March 18, 2026 statement, and report titled,
    ``The Power of Plyler,'' highlighting how the Plyler decision
    has aided in decades of economic advancement.
        I would also introduce the Texas-specific data showing the
    net fiscal impact of Plyler has been $93 billion to the
    positive for Texas.
        Finally, I would enter a 2021 study by the National Bureau
    of Economic Research entitled, ``Presence of immigrant students
    boosts test scores for all.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection. I now recognize the gentlelady
    from Wyoming for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. When discussing the issue of K-12
    education, there is no free public education. Every decision
    that is made here in Washington, DC, or within any State or
    local community, comes at the cost of the American taxpayer.
        Plyler v. Doe effectively imposed an unfunded mandate whose
    consequences, due to years of neglect and mismanagement of our
    immigration system across multiple administrations, have gone
    far beyond what could have ever been foreseen in 1982.
        This is evident as the court's decision rested on the
    assertion that the number of illegal aliens in public schools
    was small, and that there was no evidence in the record
    suggesting that illegal entrance imposes any significant burden
    on the State's economy.
        We know that is absolutely untrue. I am sure that Mr.
    Saenz, if he would actually read that the data, would recognize
    that as well.
        This decision which came at a time markedly different than
    the circumstances we face today, negatively impacts every
    aspect of participation of our public education system at the
    cost of hardworking American families.
        Reporting from 2023, found that New York City grappled with
    the challenge of incorporating nearly 20,000 illegal alien
    students into its classes, while in 2024, the Denver public
    schools incorporated over 3,000.
        Ms. Drogan, knowing that schools are generally unable to
    ask about a student's immigration status, does any consistently
    reliable data exist that could give us an idea of how many
    illegal alien students are enrolled in our public-school
    systems, and how much it costs the American taxpayer?
        Ms. Drogan. It is all just estimates, and I would say that
    is very intentional, whether it is weaponized opaqueness or
    incompetence. The idea is that they don't want us to identify
    them, to understand and be able to give accurate numbers on how
    many, where they are, what the impact, not just the cost, but
    the socioeconomic impact of entire communities.
        Again, I was listening to Mr. McClintock talk about a
    mother talking about she wants to get her kids away from gangs.
    There are gangs in Houston schools. Tren de Aragua is in
    Houston schools. This has been proven.
        To say that we can give an accurate number, we can use
    Census Bureau data, we can use different entities to try and
    extrapolate from Customs and Immigration, or other services,
    but, the truth is, is we don't know.
        That is very intentional, particularly by the Obama
    Administration's ``Dear Colleague'' letter in 2011.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, then Mr. O'Brien, wouldn't you say that
    the same is true for crime statistics?
        Isn't that intentional to ignore the immigration status of
    many people who commit crimes, to cover up the fact that in
    fact illegal aliens do commit crimes at a higher rate than
    Native born?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes. That is 100 percent correct. You also
    have to take into account that any illegal alien is by
    definition a criminal, because they have violated 8 U.S.C.
    1325, improper entry by an alien. They have committed a crime
    to enter the United States.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. If the data is not there and verification
    is not an option, are there adequate safeguards at the State
    and local level to monitor and mitigate misuse of taxpayer
    funding, including issues such as residency or enrollment
    fraud?
        Ms. Drogan. No. Not anyone that can track it accurately. We
    simply do not have the data.
        Ms. Hageman. What reforms, if any, have been taken at the
    State and local levels, particularly over the course of the
    Biden-Harris border crisis? Has there been any?
        Ms. Drogan. No. The most recent has been, Tennessee has
    passed a law through the House, asking to be able to track this
    data.
        Ms. Hageman. All right. Again, Ms. Drogan, given that the
    national average cost of educating a single student exceeds
    $16,000, how have State and local governments accounted for
    spikes in enrollment stemming from unchecked illegal
    immigration?
        Ms. Drogan. It is crushing. The debt in Texas is growing
    from not just what we are spending at the State level, but we
    also have to recognize that our bond debt, we have $234.2
    billion of bond debt.
        This brings massive amount of debt from our taxpayers. We
    cannot identify who they are, where they are going, and the
    impact on Texans as a whole.
        Ms. Hageman. Have essential services programs or facility
    improvements been reduced or delayed due to the enrollment
    burden that Plyler v. Doe imposes on our Nation schools?
        Ms. Drogan. That is a very accurate statement, that there
    are students that are not getting the services, American
    students, whether they are special education students or in
    other classifications, that are not getting the services,
    because we are having to redirect student funding to pay for
    English second language teachers, tutors, all sorts of this.
        Also, as I noted in my testimony, there is a whole host of
    other problems, not just chronic absenteeism. You look at the
    medical results, the mental health problems, when you have
    these students that are coming in and they have severe mental
    health problems due to traumatic events, whether it is rape or
    violence that they have occurred, this takes other resources
    out of the school system.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, I thank you for the testimony. I
    have many other questions, but I also want to, at this point,
    ask unanimous consent to introduce an article entitled,
    ``Illegal immigrant student accused of groping girls in North
    Virginia high school,'' related to an adult student who lied
    about his age so that he could enroll in high school.
        Ask unanimous consent for an article, ``Vance reveals $19
    billion in fraud uncovered in Minneapolis and hints that
    California is the next target.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Hageman. Clearly erasing any financial benefits that
    illegals may provide in this country. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I think the gentlelady from Wyoming. I will now
    recognize the gentlelady from Washington.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to start just
    by saying there are no illegal children. It is a very cruel
    thing to say about children.
        There is an illegal war on Iran happening right now that
    has already cost taxpayers $16 billion. There is an illegal
    coverup of the Epstein files that is happening right now.
        There is an illegal corruption by the Trump Administration
    officials, like Kristi Noem, in directing government contracts
    to family members. Those are all illegal.
        It is important that we don't say that there are illegal
    children. That is a very cruel and hurtful statement to make.
        Republicans would have the American people blame immigrants
    for all their problems. It is not immigrants who are making it
    harder to feed families. Republicans did that by cutting
    hundreds of billions of dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition
    Assistance Program.
        It is not immigrants who are raising the cost of healthcare
    for children. Republicans did that by cutting hundreds of
    billions of dollars from the Children's Health Insurance
    Program.
        It is not immigrants who are hurting the quality of our
    public education. Republicans are now trying to do that by
    overturning the Supreme Court's historic decision in Plyler v.
    Doe.
        That decision established that undocumented students are
    protected by the 14th Amendment, against discriminatory State
    laws that deny them equal access to public education. Justice
    William Brennan said it best when he said, ``these students,
    live within the structure of our civic institutions and
    contribute to the progress of our Nation.''
        Mr. Saenz, a lot of these discussions end up dehumanizing
    immigrants. I wanted you to humanize these students for us. Who
    are they?
        Bring them into the room with us, tell them who they are,
    how they have contributed to the progress of our Nation.
        Mr. Saenz. Well, first, they are the older brothers and
    sisters of U.S. citizens. Then, when they complete their
    education, go on to higher education, and adjust their status
    and remain here permanently, they are the U.S. citizen fathers
    and mothers of United States citizens today.
        When you talk about a decision that goes back 44 years, we
    have a long history of folks who were able to attend school
    because of Plyler, because they were in Texas or another State
    that might have adopted that policy, and who have succeeded
    beyond anyone's dreams. Making contributions to our economy, to
    our society, and even to government.
        Ms. Jayapal. You mentioned during COVID, I want to bring
    another example from my home State, Itzel Santiago Pastrana
    grew up going to public schools near Seattle, where she had
    teachers who mentored her and inspired her to attend the
    University of Washington.
        As a DACA recipient, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, you
    talked about this progression in some of your answers, she has
    decided to give back to her community by working at an
    immigration law firm for a decade, and at the State Attorney
    General's Civil Rights Division.
        The whole discussion reminds me of the debate that we keep
    having in this Committee around birthright citizenship, another
    clear protection of the 14th Amendment that Republicans
    continue to attack. This Subcommittee held a hearing last year
    and one of the witnesses testified that eliminating birthright
    citizenship would ``create a permanent underclass, a caste
    system, which was the very result that the Reconstruction
    Congress intended to end.''
        Mr. Saenz, would removing students like Itzel from the
    classroom also create a permanent underclass?
        Mr. Saenz. It would. The majority in Plyler v. Doe
    recognized that, and creating such a permanent underclass would
    have immediate negative repercussions for the public school
    system.
        As I was outlining, they will lose students in the schools,
    not just undocumented students. It has long-term consequences,
    of course, for all of society.
        When you have a permanent underclass, they are deprived of
    any ability to contribute in the way that DACA recipients and
    others have continued to contribute as doctors, as lawyers, in
    important professions and positions throughout society.
        Ms. Jayapal. What about the impact on U.S. citizen
    children? What is the impact in the classroom likely to be?
        Mr. Saenz. It actually improves their education, because
    they are exposed to other cultures. They are exposed to other
    experiences.
        Ms. Jayapal. When those undocumented students are there?
        Mr. Saenz. When those students are sitting next to them.
        Ms. Jayapal. When they are not there, the opposite.
        Mr. Saenz. They lose all that. They lose all that. Their
    only encounters with those students would be out on the
    streets. That is not likely to be a very positive encounter on
    either side.
        We are talking about enhancing public education by
    continuing to follow a 44-year-old decision or bringing public
    education to an end as we know it.
        Ms. Jayapal. In addition to taking away benefits in the
    classroom, what are the broader consequences to the American
    economy, you have sort of referred to this, if Plyler was
    overturned, and students like Itzel were denied equal access to
    education?
        Mr. Saenz. Well, our economy would take a huge hit. I mean,
    there is no denying that people who are allowed to have an
    education are able to contribute more to our society through
    tax payments and through their contributions to the job.
        If you take away even the basic education that folks need,
    their ability to contribute will be rendered almost a nullity.
        Ms. Jayapal. This is such an important conversation that
    you are bringing to the table. I thank you.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back. I do have some unanimous consent
    requests to enter.
        Mr. Roy. All right.
        Ms. Jayapal. First, one is granting, this is from New
    America, ``Granting undocumented students access to public
    education delivers $633 billion return on investment.''
        Second, from Brookings, ``Are immigrant students
    disproportionately consuming educational resources?'' I would
    just say that the conclusion is absolutely not.
        Third, from NPR, ``Immigrants are less likely to commit
    crimes than U.S.-born Americans, studies find.''
        Fourth, from Cato Institute, with similar conclusions,
    ``Illegal immigration and crime in Texas.''
        Fifth, from the National Institute of Justice entitled,
    ``Undocumented immigrant offending rate lower than U.S.-born
    citizen rate.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection. I thank the gentlelady from
    Washington. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all of you on
    the panel today. Let me jump into this.
        Mr. Rogers, you touched on something when Representative
    McClintock was speaking, and you had mentioned in your written
    testimony that caught my attention, that the 2022 Dobbs
    decision at the Supreme Court set the framework for overturning
    Plyler v. Doe.
        I just want to give you a few moments to kind of dive a
    little deeper into that, and explain why you believe this to be
    the case?
        Mr. Rogers. Sure. Thank you. The Dobbs decision set up five
    standards for whether a prior precedent should be overruled.
        First, whether the nature of the court's error, and if it
    is an egregious error. That weighs in favor of overruling. As I
    talked about, the court applied the wrong standards for the
    Equal Protection Clause.
        Second, the quality of the reasoning. If you actually read
    the decision, it is very bare. It just basically says this is
    good policy. It doesn't give actual legal reasoning.
        Third, workability. It is whether it is a standard that can
    be applied by courts. The standard the court invented, no one
    has been able to define or understand what it means.
        Fourth, its effect on other areas of law. As we have heard,
    this decision has affected how States can implement their own
    education policy.
        We heard some testimony about how States haven't adopted
    Plyler type laws, like the one they issued in Texas, because it
    is good policy. If it were good policy, then we wouldn't hear
    people concerned about Plyler being overruled.
        The fact that they are so concerned, means they know that
    States would adopt it if they didn't have this restriction.
        Fifth, reliance interest. Whether companies or individuals
    have financial reliance interests on the rule. There are no
    financial interests of the type of like, contract interest
    here.
        All five rules weigh against Plyler being upheld.
        Mr. Harris. Excellent. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, can you
    explain how the Supreme Court in Plyler acted like the
    Legislative Branch rather than the Judicial Branch?
        Mr. O'Brien. Sure. The function of a court is to apply the
    law as written. In this particular case, there really was no
    Constitutional issue before the court based on the court's own
    reasoning.
        The court found that illegal aliens were not a suspect
    class. The court also found that a free public education is not
    a fundamental right.
        Therefore, it is arguable that there was no Constitutional
    issue whatsoever in front of the court, because by definition,
    if illegal aliens are not a suspect class, then the State of
    Texas was not discriminating against anyone.
        For whatever reason, the Supreme Court granted writ of
    certiorari, and went forward with it. Then, they completely
    ignored the relevant standards, and they ruled entirely on
    policy grounds.
        Now, the consideration of policy under our Constitutional
    framework, belongs to the Congress of the United States. It
    does not belong to the courts.
        The courts apply the law based on cannons of statutory
    construction and other legal principles. Policy calls belong to
    Congress.
        Mr. Harris. You would say the court should not be able to
    require free education for the children of illegal immigrants?
        Mr. O'Brien. No. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
    That is a decision that if Congress wished to make, it probably
    could have. It in no way fell within the purview of the court.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rogers, coming back, as I
    understand the Plyler v. Doe, the State of Texas argued the
    illegal alien children imposed a burden on the State's
    education system.
        The court in a decision rejected such a claim. Here we are
    40 years later, where there is a lot more data to underscore
    that point.
        Can you explain the burden that the massive influx of
    illegal aliens' places on the State's public education systems?
        Mr. Rogers. As we have heard, they impose a tremendous
    burden, because most of them arrive not speaking English. They
    require special services, which means that American citizen
    children can't get those services, because there are limited
    resources.
        An interesting example of the policy decision about this is
    if a temporary immigrant arrives with a tourist visa, they are
    actually required to pay tuition. Under Federal law right now,
    they have to pay tuition for their kids.
        Yet, illegal aliens who are also here temporarily, don't
    have to. Which is tremendously unfair that they are treated
    differently and given special privileges.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I yield my time.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
        Mr. Rogers, in your last 30 seconds here, it is your
    considered judgment that there are States right now taking
    actions to start to pass laws to say that they should not have
    to fund education for illegal alien children, and that they
    should move their way through the courts, and that the court
    should take it up.
        Is that correct?
        Mr. Rogers. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. Thanks, Mr. Rogers. I will now recognize the
    gentlelady from Vermont for five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a former middle
    school teacher, which I always say is perfect preparation for
    this place.
        I know the incredible value and importance of public
    education. To say that the children of immigrants are not
    entitled to learn and to grow in public schools is an extreme
    position.
        We are talking about children. This is a fundamental
    question of decency and who we claim to be as Americans. I want
    to echo the comments of my colleague, Ms. Jayapal, who said
    there are no illegal children.
        We should not be referring to them in this way. How has
    this Administration treated children and families so far?
        Well, it has cut early childhood education. It has cut
    children's healthcare. It has cut child nutrition programs. It
    has cut infant formula inspection.
        It has cut research for vaccines. They even eliminated
    funding for children's television programs on PBS. This is not
    an administration that is looking out for children and
    families.
        As I said, I am a former teacher and I am a parent. I know
    how hard it is to be a kid and a teen in this country today.
        Our kids carry the real fear of gun violence in their
    schools. They carry the real anxiety of unaddressed climate
    change. They have to navigate social media landscapes that
    exacerbate the crisis of loneliness and disconnection.
        For the children of immigrants, they have to deal with all
    this on top of the fear that they are experiencing right now,
    as there are targeted raids happening in communities across
    this country.
        Just last week in Vermont, masked agents decided to create
    chaos and a dangerous situation near two schools. I heard from
    parents about how frightened they were to drop their kids off
    at school and to pick them up at the end of the day.
        The actions caused fear and concern among this community in
    Vermont. That kind of anxiety is going to live with those
    children and these families for a lifetime.
        Mr. Saenz, can you describe the level of fear and anxiety
    affecting immigrant communities in the U.S. today?
        Mr. Saenz. It is extreme. It is extreme because of what you
    have described. It starts with the undifferentiated immigration
    enforcement that is happening across the country, targeted at
    certain States, but across the country, and accomplished
    through masked agents who do not wear identification that they
    are law enforcement at all.
        This is not what kids have been taught should occur in this
    country. It occasions great anxiety, and studies have begun to
    document higher degrees of absenteeism because of it.
        You add to it the challenges that you have also outlined.
    When you take away adequate nutrition, you take away adequate
    healthcare, you take away adequate housing, then those are the
    things that kids have anxiety about.
        Is my family going to have a place to stay tomorrow night?
    Am I going to get a meal tonight? Am I going to get the
    healthcare that I need?
        On top of that, if they actually have a healthcare need
    that they are not getting, they will be absent from school. All
    the kids who are in school are preoccupied by that kind of
    consideration.
        It leads to their inability to concentrate, as I am sure
    you saw--
        Ms. Balint. Oh, I know.
        Mr. Saenz. Many times, for all kinds of reasons in middle
    school. This just adds to it. It makes them ill-equipped to
    really take advantage of the education while they are sitting
    in the classroom. All of it accumulates.
        Ms. Balint. I just want to make sure I highlight something
    here. It is not just immigrant children. It is any family that
    is a family of color in this administration.
        Because, we have seen that ICE enforcement is concentrating
    on people who have a different color of skin and a different
    accent. They have widened the search; it is creating lots of
    harm in our communities.
        When you think about a child's immigrant status, and that
    if it can be used as a means to deny immigrant children of an
    education, where does this end?
        What is the logical conclusion for this in terms of equal
    access to public education? Where will it end? What other
    groups will be excluded from this?
        Mr. Saenz. Well, you have to assume that the theory that
    there is no rational basis that would strike down the Texas
    law, means that there is no rational basis standard to strike
    down excluding disabled kids from school.
        They are also expensive. Their education is more expensive.
    You can imagine that they would be the next target.
        Beyond that, you can single out any group of students,
    because education is not a fundamental right. Under the theory
    being put forward today, there would be no basis to challenge
    any decision on equal protection grounds that would exclude any
    group of students.
        You can imagine a society split between those who are
    allowed to receive a free public education and a large and
    growing group that are denied that opportunity.
        Ms. Balint. I agree with you. I stand with students. I
    stand with their families. I stand against the fear that is
    being created.
        If we want a better world, which we all do, I think we can
    come together on that on this Committee, then we have to
    support and protect young people in this country, not attack
    them.
        Thank you so much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont. Before I
    recognize my friend from Texas, I have a couple of unanimous
    extent requests.
        I ask unanimous extent to put in the record, an article by
    FAIR, demonstrating the data showing illegal aliens have higher
    crime rates.
        Without objection. A CIS report, showing misuse of Texas
    data understates illegal immigrant criminality.
        Without objection. I would also put in a report by FAIR,
    showing that there were approximately, respectfully, 16,000
    illegal aliens in Vermont, compared to 2.7 million illegal
    aliens in the State of Texas, in a report demonstrating State-
    by-State data.
        With that, I will recognize my friend from Texas, Mr. Gill.
        Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding this
    hearing and for fighting so hard against destructive mass
    migration. Thank you for the witnesses for taking the time to
    be here.
        Mr. Saenz, if somebody crosses the border illegally, what
    should happen to them?
        Mr. Saenz. Federal law indicates that there are steps that
    can be taken to remove them. Now, that can happen at the
    border.
        Mr. Gill. They should be deported?
        Mr. Saenz. It can happen when they are integrated into
    society. There are protections once you are integrated into
    society, especially depending on how long--
        Mr. Gill. If they are crossing, if we find them crossing
    into the country illegally, they should be deported to put it
    simply. Is that right?
        Mr. Saenz. If someone does not have a right to enter, yes,
    there is a right under Federal law to interdict them and
    prevent them from entering.
        Mr. Gill. Right.
        Mr. Saenz. That has been a basic element of immigration law
    for a very long time.
        Mr. Gill. I agree.
        Mr. Saenz. Including during Plyler.
        Mr. Gill. I agree. Do you believe that American tax dollars
    should be used to rehabilitate criminal illegal aliens within
    our own borders?
        Mr. Saenz. I believe it is in our own interest to
    rehabilitate anybody who commits a crime.
        Mr. Gill. Including criminal illegal aliens who never
    should have been here?
        Mr. Saenz. If it happens within our borders, if it happens
    within our borders, it is to the benefit of all of us to
    rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation of those convicted--
        Mr. Gill. How many criminal--
        Mr. Saenz. Criminals are not for their own benefit. It is
    for the benefit of society.
        Mr. Gill. How many criminal illegal aliens should we
    rehabilitate?
        Mr. Saenz. Again, anyone who commits a crime and is
    convicted of a crime should be rehabilitated--
        Mr. Gill. There is no end?
        Mr. Saenz. To the benefit of the entire--
        Mr. Gill. An illegal alien comes into our country, and
    murders or rape somebody, we ought to rehabilitate them, is
    your view. There is no limit to the number of illegal alien
    criminals we should rehabilitate? Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Saenz. I wasn't asked to testify about that,
    Congressman. I was asked to testify about--
        Mr. Gill. I am just clarifying what your position is.
        Mr. Saenz. I am not sure what this has to do with anything.
        Mr. Gill. I am clarifying your position on what you just
    attempted to lay out.
        Mr. Saenz. I think my position is quite clear. Thank you.
        Mr. Gill. OK. How much money should we spend on
    rehabilitating criminal illegal aliens?
        Mr. Saenz. We should spend as much money as necessary to
    rehabilitate anyone who was convicted of crimes in this
    country. Again, let--
        Mr. Gill. As much as we--
        Mr. Saenz. --me just note, Congressman, this has nothing to
    do with Plyler v. Doe.
        Mr. Gill. We are getting--
        Mr. Saenz. These are children.
        Mr. Gill. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Saenz. These are children. With an education, they are
    far less likely to--
        Mr. Gill. We are getting there and you have already
    answered--
        Mr. Saenz. Commit a crime.
        Mr. Gill. My question actually. Couldn't we just secure the
    border and deport illegal aliens as opposed to rehabilitating
    them on our own tax dollars?
        Mr. Saenz. That is too facile, Congress Member. You should
    understand that. The simple fact is, society benefits from
    rehabilitation. It is not a gift to anyone who is convicted of
    a crime.
        Mr. Gill. Society is paying for rehabilitation, it sounds
    like. Do you believe that there should be a strict wall of
    separation between local law enforcement and immigration
    officials?
        Mr. Saenz. Do I believe there should be such a law? Yes, I
    do.
        Mr. Gill. That there should be a strict wall, to be clear.
    A strict wall of separation--
        Mr. Saenz. All laws are strict. I am not aware of Congress
    or any legislature passing a lenient law. This is a strict law.
        Mr. Gill. It is wall, W-A-L-L. It is not law, wall, W-A-L-
    L.
        Mr. Saenz. Oh, wall. A wall.
        Mr. Gill. That is right.
        Mr. Saenz. I am sorry, I thought you said law.
        Mr. Gill. No.
        Mr. Saenz. I apologize.
        Mr. Gill. A strict wall of separation between.
        Mr. Saenz. The wall would be incredibly ridiculous,
    frankly.
        Mr. Gill. A wall of separation between local law
    enforcement and immigration officials?
        Mr. Saenz. A wall of separation, is what, OK. Yes, Congress
    Member, yes. Again, I do believe there should be a law of
    separation. If you want to describe that law metaphorically as
    a wall--
        Mr. Gill. The word is--
        Mr. Saenz. I would accept that.
        Mr. Gill. OK. I was actually using your words, where you
    said there should be a strict, strict wall of no cooperation
    between local law enforcement and Federal immigration
    authorities.
        That is something that you had said in an interview with
    NPR in November 2016. If police arrest--
        Mr. Saenz. I have just acknowledged that.
        Mr. Gill. Right. If police arrest them--
        Mr. Saenz. I am not sure why you are quoting myself to
    myself. I am sure that maybe it was not--
        Mr. Gill. I am asking you, I am the one asking questions
    here, not you.
        If police arrest an illegal alien for breaking into
    somebody's home in the middle of the night, should they turn
    that illegal alien over to immigration officials?
        Mr. Saenz. Plyler v. Doe guarantees an education.
        Mr. Gill. It is just a yes or no.
        Mr. Saenz. A result, that means that those kids who
    received that education--
        Mr. Gill. I will tell you, you don't like that--
        Mr. Saenz. --are far less likely to break into anyone's
    home, Congress Member.
        Mr. Gill. I am asking, let's say they do. Should they be
    turned over to immigration officials?
        Mr. Saenz. No. They--
        Mr. Gill. It is just a yes or no question.
        Mr. Saenz. No, they should be put through--
        Mr. Gill. They should be put through.
        Mr. Saenz. The criminal law system that we have.
        Mr. Gill. What about after serving, let's say they are
    convicted and they serve a sentence. This is a criminal illegal
    alien, they broke into somebody's home. They are convicted.
    They serve, let's say, a five-year sentence.
        Instead of releasing them onto the streets, should local
    law enforcement or prison officials release them or give them
    over to immigration officials?
        Mr. Saenz. There are too many repercussions of a policy
    like that. You are putting it in the context of a single
    instance.
        Mr. Gill. No. It is very clear--
        Mr. Saenz. It is a very difficult concept.
        Mr. Gill. It us very clear that your answer is no.
        Mr. Saenz. No. That is not clear, sir.
        Mr. Gill. Your testimony--
        Mr. Saenz. That is not clear, sir. Please don't put words
    in my mouth.
        Mr. Gill. Should American--
        Mr. Saenz. You have my words from NPR.
        Mr. Gill. Should American taxpayers pay for--
        Mr. Saenz. What I say here, you don't need to put words in
    my mouth.
        Mr. Gill. Should American taxpayers pay for Medicaid for
    illegal aliens?
        Mr. Saenz. In many circumstances, yes.
        Mr. Gill. They should?
        Mr. Saenz. Not just American taxpayers, but immigrant
    taxpayers also pay taxes.
        Mr. Gill. Should American taxpayers pay for social security
    for illegal--
        As you know, sir, there is no exception for taxpaying--
    should American--
        Mr. Saenz. Due to immigration status.
        Mr. Gill. I am the one who is asking questions here. Should
    American taxpayers pay for social security for illegal aliens?
    It is a yes or no question.
        Mr. Saenz. Actually, no.
        Mr. Gill. The answer is no. I am asking a yes or no
    question.
        Mr. Saenz. It is not a yes or no question. It doesn't
    happen. We don't provide social security benefits--
        Mr. Gill. Wait, I am asking you if we should?
        Mr. Saenz. To undocumented people. I wasn't aware that it
    was a topic of today's hearing.
        Mr. Gill. I don't think that this should happen, and I am
    asking you if you think it should happen?
        Mr. Roy. It is the last question. The witness may answer
    the question.
        Mr. Saenz. I don't believe that is a question when it
    doesn't happen. It is misleading to suggest it does. No one who
    is undocumented--
        Mr. Gill. It is a really basic question.
        Mr. Saenz. Receives social security.
        Mr. Gill. You don't want to answer it, because you have got
    a crazy radical open borders agenda that we can all see. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
    questions. I will now recognize the Ranking Member for UC
    requests.
        Ms. Scanlon. Yes. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record an article written by Alexandra
    Villarreal, published by the Guardian on January 23, 2026,
    ``There are kids not going to school. Fear of ICE is keeping
    children from classes in Connecticut.''
        I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an
    article written by Bri Hatch and published by Chalkbeat
    Tennessee on October 28, 2025, titled, ``In increasingly
    Hispanic Memphis schools, immigration enforcement surge brings
    fear and absence.''
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
    written by Kate Payne, Bianca Vasquez Tones, and Gisela
    Salomon, published by NBC News, November 17, 2025, entitled,
    ``Immigrant student enrollment is dwindling at schools across
    the U.S. amid immigration problems.''
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article
    written by Justine McDaniel and Maria Luisa Paul, published by
    the Washington Post, November 24, 2025, titled, ``In cities
    targeted by ICE, empty desks and district follow.''
        I seek UC to enter into the record an article written by
    Daniella Silva and Natasha Korecki, published by NBC News on
    October 14, 2025, entitled, ``Chicago teachers say immigration
    enforcement near schools is scaring kids.''
        Finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    an article written by Mara Klecker and Anthony Lonetree,
    published by the Minnesota Star Tribune, January 15, 2026,
    titled, ``Attendance drops at Minnesota schools as Federal
    immigration enforcement intensifies.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the gentlelady from
    California.
        Mr. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have to say
    that many of us travel around the world. In my travels, I
    remain in awe at how educated so many children are in other
    countries.
        They are bilingual. They are trilingual. They are
    culturally proficient and aware. It is amazing.
        It is so disturbing that it seems like my Republican
    colleagues in this Committee are interested in (A) dehumanizing
    other children, and (B) advocating for our children to be
    unprepared for this world.
        At one point the languages that folks were hearing in the
    schools were Welsh, Irish, Polish, German, and Italian. Now, we
    want to shift that to children of color as we continue to find
    ways to isolate ourselves and dehumanize children.
        Mr. Saenz, folks do like to talk about the money, so let's
    get into the money. There was a FWD.us report called, ``The
    Power of Plyler,'' that estimates that adult Californians who
    benefited from Plyler have contributed $655 billion in combined
    past and future GDP over their lifetime.
        Can you quickly walk the Committee through what that number
    looks like on the ground?
        Mr. Saenz. What it means is:, we have contributing members
    of our society who are doctors, who are teachers. Many formerly
    undocumented students end up in the education profession, in
    the healthcare profession.
        They are making contributions in business, in some cases in
    C-suite positions. It means that we have the opportunity to
    translate that investment in education into the GDP that report
    you have cited talks about.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right. The report actually shows a net
    fiscal gain of $145 billion in California alone. That is income
    tax revenue over lifetimes, minus the cost of educating those
    children.
        For those who claim we can't afford Plyler, how do you
    respond to the argument that we actually can't afford to lose
    it?
        Mr. Saenz. It is absolutely clear, because we will have
    immediate repercussions in our public schools, really seeing a
    further diminution in their ability to deliver an education to
    anyone.
        In the long term, we will lose all that additional revenue
    and economic contributions, and the things that you can't even
    quantify in money. The innovations, the inventions, the new
    ideas, the the inspired leadership provided by formerly
    undocumented immigrants in our society.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Sort of like, connectivity to humanity.
        If Plyler is overturned, California stands to lose $99
    billion in future economic output, just from children currently
    in school in 2023.
        What does that trajectory look like nationally, in your
    professional assessment?
        Mr. Saenz. Well, you can extend it out further, because if
    Plyler is overturned, a number of States will begin to attempt
    to deny an education to kids.
        I ultimately think they would reverse as they see their
    public schools fall apart, because of the exclusion of a
    certain class of students.
        Overtime, you are talking about trillions of contributions
    to the economy, including to revenue from a population that is
    permanently going to be in this country.
        The contrast is a permanent underclass incapable of
    providing any kind of serious contribution to either tax
    revenues, the economy, or to the many other elements of social
    connection that we have talked about.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. To Mr. O'Brien, your
    organization advocates for restricting Plyler. The record here
    shows that the core argument you make, that educating these
    children is a cost to taxpayers, simply doesn't hold up.
        The data shows tax revenue from undocumented workers alone
    covers the cost of educating these children more than nine
    times over.
        Am I correct in saying that you believe that the hundreds
    of billions of dollars in economic contributions from Plyler
    beneficiaries, including over $600 billion in California alone,
    were not worth the investment?
        Mr. O'Brien. I don't believe that those contributions were
    made. I believe that the data on which those claims are based
    is erroneous, and that there is a cost imposed by Plyler.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. You don't like the data when it
    doesn't say what you want it to say. I am going to stay with
    the numbers in the report and the numbers that are here.
        FAIR has argued that educating undocumented children is a
    cost to taxpayers. The data in front of us shows a net fiscal
    gain of $145 billion in California, $43 billion in New York,
    $20 billion in Arizona, $93 billion in Texas, $42 billion in
    Florida, and $21 billion in Washington.
        Once again, we should be talking about why we cannot afford
    to lose Plyler, not why it is so important to lose all these
    economic gains.
        Mr. Chair, I just want to enter into the record, I would
    like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the
    report FWD.us report, ``The Power of Plyler.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California. I will now
    recognize the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rogers, what
    percentage, any idea what percentage of the United States
    population lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction?
        Mr. Rogers. That is a good question. I don't have that
    number, but it is far too high. It should be zero.
        Mr. Jordan. Yes. It should be zero, but it is like 31.5
    percent. Eighteen cities, 11 States, three counties, and the
    District of Columbia.
        Because these are big Blue cities, big Blue States, again,
    almost a third of the population lives in a jurisdiction where,
    and correct me if I am wrong, but where local Left-wing
    political leaders tell local law enforcement not to work with
    Federal law enforcement when it comes to enforcing Federal law.
        Is that your understanding of sanctuary jurisdiction?
        Mr. Rogers. Correct. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Is that literally one of the dumbest things you
    have ever heard?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. It is against Federal law as well because
    it is not--
        Mr. Jordan. No kidding. In a third of the country, that
    goes on. Last year alone, we just marked this Bill up two weeks
    ago, last year alone, 2025, 17,864 times, ICE would file a
    detainer with a local law, with local jail, local detention
    center, where there is a person who is in the country illegally
    and been charged with a crime, and ICE would send a detainer
    notice saying, hey, if you are going to let this guy out, give
    us a call.
        For 17,864 times in 2025, local law enforcement, because
    Left-wing politicians told them to, would not work with Federal
    law enforcement. Many times, these people are released to the
    streets.
        Again, I would ask you, is that a crazy policy or what?
        Mr. Rogers. It is absolutely crazy and it is totally
    counterproductive for everybody, illegal immigrants, and legal
    immigrants who live in those communities.
        Mr. Jordan. Would you be surprised to learn that several of
    those people who were released, then went out and caused harm,
    did some crime against some other American or maybe some other
    migrant, who knows, but committed some crime after they have
    been released when they could have been turned over to Federal
    law enforcement?
        Mr. Rogers. It is not surprising. It is totally
    predictable. It is a tragedy for each of those people.
        Mr. Jordan. Totally predictable. Mr. Saenz, would you say
    that is a good policy?
        Mr. Saenz. Which policy, Congressman?
        Chair Jordan. The policy sanctuary jurisdiction.
        Mr. Saenz. It's a good policy.
        Chair Jordan. It's a good policy to let 17,000 people out,
    potentially 17,000 people, not on a detainer and let some of
    those people released to the streets who had already been
    charged with a crime, and then, they commit another crime?
    You're saying that's a good policy?
        Mr. Saenz. That's your characterization of how that works
    out.
        Chair Jordan. No, that's the facts.
        Mr. Saenz. It's an inaccurate--it's an inaccurate
    characterization.
        Chair Jordan. That is the fact.
        Mr. Saenz. No, I'm sorry, it's inaccurate.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Tell me what's inaccurate.
        Mr. Saenz. If you want to have accurate--
        Chair Jordan. Thirty-one--31 percent of the--
        Mr. Saenz. If you want to have--
        Chair Jordan. Thirty-one percent of the population lives in
    a sanctuary jurisdiction. Is that inaccurate?
        Mr. Saenz. I don't know. I take your word on that.
        Chair Jordan. OK.
        Mr. Saenz. I don't know.
        Chair Jordan. That's not inaccurate. What about this:
    17,864 times a detainer was not honored last year by local law
    enforcement when ICE issued detainer?
        Mr. Saenz. Again, I have no idea, Congressman. What I came
    here to talk about, Plyler v. Doe, and I can absolutely
    guarantee you there has never been a detainer issued against a
    student enrolled in public education as a result of Plyler.
        Chair Jordan. That wasn't asked. I'll get to the student
    issue--
        Mr. Saenz. The hearing is about Plyler.
        Chair Jordan. The hearing is about--
        Mr. Saenz. I don't have an answer to your question about
    whether the--
        Chair Jordan. The hearing is about Plyler and about
    immigration policy--
        Mr. Saenz. --data you have is accurate and related to
    something completely unrelated.
        Chair Jordan. --and about immigration policy, and I'm
    getting to that.
        Mr. Roy. Suspend. It is the gentleman's time to ask the
    questions. The witness can respond to the questions, but we are
    not going to talk over each other. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Jordan. Mr. O'Brien, to get to Plyler, there's a cost
    associated with this, right?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. With this decision?
        Mr. O'Brien. There is.
        Chair Jordan. Significant? The court said, way back in
    1982, the number of illegal aliens in public schools was small
    and there was, quote, ``no evidence in records suggesting that
    illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's
    economy.'' That was the ruling back in 1982, but things have
    changed a little bit since then, haven't they?
        Mr. O'Brien. They've changed drastically and the estimated
    combined cost to the taxpayers--Federal, State, and local--is
    somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 billion, with a ``B.''
        Chair Jordan. It was particularly exacerbated the last--the
    previous four years in the last administration? Is that
    accurate?
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes, by a significant margin.
        Chair Jordan. Eight to 10 million people were coming into
    the country in a four-year timeframe. Many of those were
    students. I remember the Biden Administration lost track of
    hundreds of thousands of those students.
        Mr. O'Brien. About--
        Chair Jordan. Is that right?
        Mr. O'Brien. About 300,000, that's correct.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. There is certainly a cost associated
    with that. That's what this hearing is about as well, yes.
        Let me ask one other question here, and then, maybe I will
    yield a few seconds to my good friend from Texas.
        Is Thomas Paine an undocumented immigrant or a Founding
    Father, Mr. Rogers? I'm just curious.
        Mr. Rogers. He's a Founding Father. He's not an
    undocumented immigrant.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. Mr. O'Brien?
        Mr. O'Brien. He was a citizen of the U.K. who went to
    another territory of the U.K. It was like moving from
    Massachusetts to New Hampshire.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. Yes.
        Ms. Drogin, I just was curious if you thought he was an
    undocumented immigrant or a Founding Father.
        Ms. Drogin. He's a Founding Father.
        Chair Jordan. What about you, Mr. Saenz, what are you going
    to say to that question?
        Mr. Saenz. I'd say the terms don't apply back when Tom
    Paine was alive. It is true he was undocumented.
        Chair Jordan. Well, but isn't--
        Mr. Saenz. That really wasn't a category of any concern in
    the 18th century.
        Chair Jordan. Was he a Founding Father.
        Mr. Saenz. He's both a Founding Father--
        Chair Jordan. Come on, it's--come on, it's ``Common
    Sense''--pun intended. Was he a Founding Father?
        Mr. Saenz. Of course he was.
        Chair Jordan. All right. God bless you. I will yield--well,
    I'm sorry, Mr. Gill, I ran out of time.
        Mr. Roy. I appreciate the Chair. I will now recognize the
    Ranking Member for a UC.
        Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, don't leave yet. I have a question
    for you, if you--
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Goldman, hold on. Hold on. I recognized the
    Ranking Member for a UC.
        Ms. Scanlon. I can hold the UC.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Goldman, I do have to do an interview.
    That's why I was, I do, but make it quick.
        Mr. Goldman. I have one question for you.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, let's hear it.
        Mr. Goldman. Of the 17,00-and-however-many--
        Chair Jordan. The 864.
        Mr. Goldman. --yes--how many of those people had
    completed--had a criminal conviction and completed their
    sentence?
        Chair Jordan. I don't know that number. I know there was a
    detainer filed--
        Mr. Goldman. Right.
        Chair Jordan. --at the local detention center or jail, and
    it was not honored. Some of those individuals were released,
    and we know some of them committed crimes.
        Mr. Goldman. Right. The problem--you can go, that's fine--
    but the problem with you constantly making this argument about
    sanctuary cities is that these are charged defendants.
        As President Trump knows very well, we live in a country
    that has due process, where you are innocent until proven
    guilty. If the grounds for which an individual is to be
    deported is based on that criminal charge, we do not deport
    people based on charges. We deport people based on convictions.
        If you want to talk about the sanctuary laws, let's talk
    about what the issues that you are raising are.
        Mr. Rogers, Mr. Jordan asked you whether or not the
    sanctuary laws prohibit State or local law enforcement from
    cooperating with Federal law enforcement. The problem is these
    are criminal law enforcement agencies and the State and local
    level, and immigration is civil law enforcement. We can imagine
    a scenario, of course, where the civil immigration enforcement
    completely overwhelms all the resources of the local police and
    the local criminal law enforcement. That is the reason why
    sanctuary city laws apply is that the police can actually focus
    on crime, not on Federal civil immigration.
        As Mr. Saenz says, we are here to talk about children--
    children--that this administration continues to attack. This
    administration has increased the fees for any unaccompanied
    child to actually apply for a visa. Where is that unaccompanied
    child supposed to get money from?
        This administration has canceled contracts for legal
    representation for children. This administration has
    consistently--and my Republicans have consistently--attacked
    children who may be transgender and affect no one else. This
    administration is waging a war on children. Leave children
    alone.
        The bigger point is what you haven't touched on, is all the
    expenses that these undocumented children take up in their
    public education, well, Mr. McClintock says they're benefiting
    from taxpayer benefits. Well, guess what? Undocumented
    immigrants are taxpayers.
        In fact, the amount of money that we get from taxes paid by
    undocumented immigrants is nine times as much money as is paid
    on their education. In fact, studies show that $633 billion in
    local and State tax revenues exceed whatever the education
    costs are. It increases our GDP by nearly $3 trillion.
        Why don't we stop terrorizing immigrant communities,
    shooting Americans, ripping Americans out of cars, arresting
    people at courthouses who are trying to lawfully apply for
    asylum? Why don't we have a bill and a hearing on that rather
    than continuing to attack children who are brought here without
    any ability to make the decision themselves?
        You want them to--what?--stay home, sit at home, when their
    parents decide to come here--rather than get an education,
    contribute to our society, which the overwhelming majority do?
        Yes, I'm sure you can pick out one or two, or five or ten,
    or 20 people who are released and commit a crime, but that
    shouldn't happen. If they do commit a crime, they should be
    deported. I disagree with Mr. Saenz on that. That's not what is
    happening here.
        Just stop attacking children. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous
    consent request.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. First, I would introduce an article
    published by The 19th, dated January 6, 2026, ``Five years
    after January 6, dozens of pardoned insurrectionists have been
    arrested again.''
        I also have a statement of Professor Patrick Wolf
    highlighting how our Founding Fathers stressed the importance
    of educating immigrant children. Patrick Wolf, distinguished
    Professor of Education Policy and 21st century endowed Chair at
    the University of Arkansas.
        A UC request to enter into the record a statement arguing
    keeping children in school protects public safety, strengthens
    our economy, and upholds our country's principles. That's
    Professor Gerard Robinson at the University of Virginia.
        Another one from NYU Professor Sophia Rodriguez that
    dismantling Plyler would harm children of U.S. citizens and all
    children in U.S. schools.
        I also have an unanimous consent to enter into the record
    statements from the following organizations: All4Ed on behalf
    of 109 civil rights organizations, National Immigration Law
    Center.
        Mr. Roy. Go through the list.
        Ms. Scanlon. OK. The Center for Law and Social Policy; the
    Century Foundation; the National Youth Law Center; the National
    Education Law Center, the First Focus on Children, and the AFL/
    CIO.
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady.
        I will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First, I would like to thank Ms.
    Drogin for bringing up one of the great horrors our country was
    involved in over the last few years, and that is the huge
    number of sexual assaults which took place by leaving the
    border open. I went down to the border maybe seven or eight
    times, and I talked to the doctors who interviewed the women,
    kind of debriefed the women, when they got to this country. The
    fact that the Biden Administration allowed this open border
    policy complete with--by the time it was over, it must have
    been hundreds of thousands of sexual assaults--is really one of
    the low points in this country's history. I wish we had more
    Democrats at the time who were able to look out for the women.
        I will also point out that there are bogus studies out
    there claiming that these illegal immigrants are not committing
    many crimes. The only way they are able to come up with such a
    ridiculous conclusion is you look at--we do not keep track of
    whether legal or illegal or citizens are committing crimes. If
    I go into a Federal prison which is near my District and ask,
    ``How many of the inmates here are illegal immigrants?'' they
    would say, ``We have no idea.'' The same thing when they talk
    about a county jail. Given that most of these illegals are not
    classified as illegals when they are in prison, that is how you
    get this bogus situation.
        I'm going to ask Mr. Rogers a question. I did not even know
    this response to Mr. Harris' question as far as who pays for
    people's public education. If someone is a legal immigrant here
    or an illegal immigrant, do we treat them differently?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes, we do. For example, if a family were to
    come on a tourist visa, DHS would let them in for six months,
    and they can often extend for another six months. A family who
    stayed here for a year under their tourist visas and enrolled
    their kids in public school, under the law, they would be
    required to pay the cost of that education here, as temporary
    visitors; whereas, the illegal immigrants under Plyler are not.
        Mr. Grothman. That's just insane, of course, the idea that
    we one more time treat people who come here illegally better
    than we treat people who come here legally.
        Now, I guess I could ask any one of you a question, but I
    will start with Ms. Drogin. We, obviously, have way too many
    illegal immigrants in this country, and we have to do something
    to discourage this, everybody from coming here. What effect
    does allowing people into our public schools for free have on
    the temptation to come here illegally?
        Ms. Drogin. It's a significant temptation. We hear this all
    the time. You talked about the mothers that you've met whose
    children were abused and themselves abused on their journey up
    here. They are driven by the promise of educating their
    children. We hear this time and time again. They are told, if
    you get here, then your children can be enrolled in the
    schools.
        That is what we are seeing occur all across the country,
    but Texas really is where many of them are entering at first
    point, and they're finding locations that--and this is why we
    talk about the growing--Chair Roy talked about how you have
    districts that started with a couple of dozen kids and they've
    grown to hundreds. There's communication, and they are bringing
    their children here to seek out a free public education.
        Mr. Grothman. It's interesting. I don't know the answer to
    this question, but I will just see if any of you want to guess.
    We have a policy of giving, apparently, a free education to
    people who come here illegally. We also have a policy of giving
    free healthcare to people who come here illegally. Which is the
    dumber policy? Which is the one resulting in more people coming
    here who shouldn't be here, the free-healthcare-for-all policy,
    more than the average American gets, or the free education
    policy? Anyone want to guess--wildly?
        Mr. Rogers. I would say it's probably a tossup. I did spend
    two years as a consular officer doing visa interviews in
    Brazil, and I personally saw people brag about how they could
    get free healthcare when they stayed here illegally. It
    definitely is a draw.
        Mr. Grothman. Right. I heard when I was down talking to the
    Border Patrol, dialysis treatment for free, time to get free
    dialysis; come to America. Right?
        The next question. We have the idea that there is a racial
    element to what we are doing. Among people who all come here
    naturalized, and every year, about 800,000 people are
    naturalized legal in this country, something like six times the
    number when I was child. Does anybody have any guess which
    countries, when it comes to letting people into this country or
    becoming citizens legally, which country they are from?
        [No response.]
        I'm under the impression that, of the 10 countries that
    send the most new people here, none of them are European
    Nations. The idea that we are a racist country is just a
    horrible slander against our country, and it makes one wonder
    about the motivation of people who do it.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Thank you
    for his questions. I will now recognize my friend from
    Missouri, Mr. Onder.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Plyler v. Doe is a clear example of judicial overreach with
    lasting consequences. What began as a narrow Texas funding law
    was transformed by the court into a nationwide mandate
    requiring the States to provide free K-12 education to illegal
    aliens.
        As Dr. O'Brien and Mr. Rogers testified, this was not a
    constitutional interpretation; this was judicial legislation.
    In doing so, the court intruded on Congress' exclusive
    authority over immigration and imposed significant ongoing
    costs to taxpayers.
        When unelected judges create policies of this scale, voters
    and their elected representatives are left without a meaningful
    voice in the decisions that directly affect their schools and
    their children's education.
        As the Dobbs framework actually offers a clear outline for
    reconsidering Plyler, as Mr. Rogers pointed out, Plyler fails
    all five Dobbs factors for reconsidering precedent because it
    was egregiously wrong from the outset.
        As Ms. Drogin testified, Plyler's downstream effects extend
    beyond illegal alien students. Schools are forced to operate
    without critical information about student populations and are
    unable to collect immigration status data that would inform
    resource allocation.
        It is time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional role
    and end this era of immigration policy dictated by unelected
    judges. Taxpayers are tired of bearing the financial burden of
    judicial mandates, and States need to be empowered to allocate
    resources based on their unique needs and the needs of all
    American students.
        Ms. Drogin, it seems to me ironic that my Democrat
    colleagues are somehow claiming that Democrats are standing up
    for these children who enter the country illegally. Three
    hundred thousand unaccompanied minor children entered this
    country under the Biden-Harris Administration, while Democrats
    in Congress cheered them on. Many of those kids were lost. In
    fact, the Biden Administration lost at least 85,000 children.
        Some of these children were released to guardians at an
    address that didn't exist or dozens of list to ``Uncle Jose''
    at the same address. Many of those kids are, undoubtedly, being
    trafficked to this day. Many are probably dead.
        What do you say to this, the idea that somehow the Trump
    Administration or we Republicans in Congress are somehow being
    cruel to illegal aliens?
        Ms. Drogin. It's incredibly cruel to lure children and
    parents to the United States, to send them through violent
    situations with coyotes that rape them, harm them, other
    violence, and then, put them--
        Mr. Onder. This goes on. This is undisputed.
        Ms. Drogin. This is undisputed.
        Mr. Onder. Women and children are raped by coyotes, and my
    Democrat colleagues encourage this. The Biden-Harris
    Administration encouraged this?
        Ms. Drogin. Yes. The policies that encouraged families to
    come over here with the promise of a better life or freebies,
    if you will, that does encourage them to go through that, and
    then, of course, as you noted, it's the Department of Homeland
    that said that there were hundreds of thousands that they could
    not find.
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Ms. Drogin. Yes, this is a huge problem, and I know that a
    lot of times some want to use feelings over facts.
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Ms. Drogin. The reality is that facts are being hidden
    intentionally. As I mentioned in my testimony, the Obama era
    Administration, the Department of Justice and Education worked
    together to send out their ``Dear Colleague'' letter implying,
    just like they did with disciplinary measures and transgender
    ideology--
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Ms. Drogin. --that you would be investigated if you did not
    play our political game.
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Ms. Drogin. Yes, that is what is happening here.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers, I have heard over and over again in this
    hearing that illegal aliens are taxpayers. Are all illegal
    aliens taxpayers?
        Mr. Rogers. No, obviously, a lot of them are paid under the
    table in a significant tax--
        Mr. Onder. Yes. The first time this ever came to my
    attention is when I was running for State rep in 2006, and I
    started knocking on the doors of actually union--I was in a
    neighborhood that was predominantly union households. They
    started asking me, ``What are you going to do about illegal
    immigration?''
        Because, in O'Fallon, Missouri, a low-income housing tax
    credit-funded project was being staffed by illegal aliens who
    were working off the books. The O'Fallon Police Department
    busted dozens working illegally off the books.
        I don't think we have any idea what the true magnitude of
    that is.
        Mr. Rogers. Correct, we don't, because the studies that
    talk about benefits cherry-pick the data. Clearly, there's
    significant costs that aren't being accounted in those studies.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I want to
    offer my apology to the Ranking Member. I went out of order,
    believing that she had already gone. It was my fault, and she
    was gracious in allowing Mr. Onder to continue his questions.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member for her five
    minutes.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Mr. Saenz, you mentioned earlier
    that much of the discussion we have heard today has been based
    on a conflation of ideas that all students from immigrant
    families who require ESL are undocumented in this country. We
    know that almost half of foreign-born U.S. residents are, in
    fact, citizens. Another 19 percent are legal permanent
    residents who could become citizens. Another five percent are
    here on temporary visas, and half of the remaining, about a
    quarter of foreign-born immigrants living in the United States
    have some legal status, including awaiting a determination of
    their asylum claims or U visas, temporary protected status,
    DACA status, humanitarian relief, et cetera.
        We are actually talking about a very small number of our
    total immigrant population who are, in fact, undocumented. When
    we talk about the children of those folks, it becomes even
    smaller.
        As a former school board member, I am concerned about the
    idea that we are going to put the burden on our school
    districts of determining immigration status, when our Federal
    Government has such a hard time determining that. Also, the
    burden of remedial education that would occur if we deny basic
    education services to children at formative parts of their
    lives.
        Can you talk about the impact on a child's life if they are
    denied an education and what that is going to mean to our
    communities as well?
        Mr. Saenz. Well, first, it is important to note, as you do,
    that all these programs would continue. English learner
    programs, remedial education programs, and all the programs
    that are being somehow attributed to the undocumented
    population, because it is so small, it would have to continue
    for public education to succeed.
        Indeed, the incremental cost of adding one more English
    learner to an English learner program is much, much smaller,
    obviously, than having to create a new program, which is not
    what's happening.
        What happens over the course of a child, and then, an
    adult's life, who does not get a basic education is they end up
    illiterate in all likelihood, and the options for those who are
    illiterate are quite limited. Too often, the options are ones
    that are against the law for many. For others, they will have
    to, as you have mentioned, have to find some way to become
    literate.
        You would have to see some huge increase in adult literacy
    programs to create a workforce that is even capable of doing
    the most menial of jobs. The alternate, as you know, is to
    ensure that every kid has an education and can go on beyond
    12th grade, if that's their inclination and their talent allow
    it, to make the kinds of contributions that we've seen from so
    many formerly undocumented immigrants ongoing in our society
    today.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. You touched on something that we
    all saw during the COVID crisis; that when schools close down
    and kids are not in school, we saw a huge spike in gun violence
    and community violence that was impacting kids, either because
    they were unsupervised, not getting an education, or because
    they had too much time on their hands.
        Can you talk about what excluding kids from school could do
    to our communities? In particular, I'm a little--
        Mr. Saenz. Yes.
        Ms. Scanlon. --surprised that this procrime policy is
    something our colleagues have expressed interest in.
        Mr. Saenz. I had the great honor of representing the
    plaintiffs in challenging California's Proposition 187, which
    is the only direct attempt to contradict Plyler in the 44 years
    since. That was only 12 years after the decision in 1994.
        What we found was police chief after police chief after
    police chief who would testify that what would happen when you
    have hundreds, thousands of kids on the street is they are
    likely to become the victims of crime, because they're readily
    available. Too many of them, as they age, would then be
    fostered into becoming participants in the criminal rings that
    they were first victimized by. It would result in a huge
    increase of crime almost immediately, once you have those kids
    out of school.
        As I've said, it multiplies over time because, ultimately,
    it's not just the kids who are excluded who choose not to be in
    school. Their siblings, citizen younger siblings of
    undocumented older siblings, will follow them out of school at
    some point, many of them. Others are friends; others are even
    acquaintances who see, if they don't have to be in school, then
    why am I here?
        Frankly, it will be accelerated by the withdrawal of all
    the support that is happening this year and next. Whether
    that's healthcare, nutrition, or housing, that's going to lead
    to more kids' inclinations to be out of school.
        If you start with eliminating Plyler, it will multiply
    quickly under the current regime because of those that lack
    support. A huge spike in crime.
        Ms. Scanlon. If we accept the argument that immigration
    status can be used as a reason to deny public education, where
    does that logic stop?
        Mr. Saenz. Again, it means that you are then allowing local
    decisionmakers to decide who they would like to exclude from
    school. It's likely to start with those who are somehow
    different from the norm or are somehow more expensive, in
    someone's views, to educate, and it could lead to a serious
    decrease in eligibility for public education that the Supreme
    Court noticed in another important case, Brown v. Board of
    Education, is so critical to preserving our democracy and
    preserving our ability to thrive as a society.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have one last--I
    hope--unanimous consent request. The February 6, 2025, a PBS
    article entitled, ``Who are the immigrants who come to the
    U.S.? Here's the data.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. Before I start my time, I have a UC request.
    Insert an article by Lora Ries of the Heritage Foundation,
    ``Every State should challenge Plyler v. Doe. Time to end free
    education for illegal alien K-12 students.''
        Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Roy. With that, I will begin my five minutes of
    questioning.
        I would note, Ms. Drogin, just quickly for you, is child
    mutilation in the context of transgender surgeries good for
    children?
        Ms. Drogin. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Roy. Is child migration in which the coyotes are
    abusing these young girls and children good for children?
        Ms. Drogin. No, it's not.
        Mr. Roy. Did disastrous open borders policies result in
    children being abused in the migration process?
        Ms. Drogin. Absolutely, it did.
        Mr. Roy. This notion of not being in school being somehow a
    time when children will get in trouble, being in danger, even
    if you concede that potential reality, is the problem of them
    not being in school or is the problem being here illegally?
        Ms. Drogin. Being here illegally.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Isn't that the condition present? This
    whole question here about, well, we're going to be allowing
    local decisionmakers to make arbitrary decisions about who can
    be educated--are we not talking about that it is not arbitrary?
    We are just saying that it should be American citizens or
    people who are legally present in the United States. Correct?
        Ms. Drogin. One hundred percent.
        Mr. Roy. Now, all this here, we have been talking about
    policy. We have heard a lot of my Democratic colleagues, we
    have heard Democratic witnesses in this hearing and in others,
    acknowledge on the record, open without shame, that local law
    enforcement should not cooperate with Federal authorities. We
    have heard that here today. We have heard that illegal aliens'
    children who are committing crimes should not be turned over to
    ICE for dealing with their possible deportation. We have heard
    that sanctuary cities, for 31 percent of the population, are
    good. We have heard that there is no limit that would be
    accepted for how many people should come to the United States,
    when we have 2.4 billion school-age children around the world.
        My question here is, all that seems to be the policy
    positions of my Democratic colleagues and those that are
    testifying on behalf of my Democratic colleagues. I think the
    question here at the core of this is a legal question, right?
        In that, I would like to turn to Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Rogers
    to close. It is that my Democratic colleagues and witnesses
    have said, effectively, in an exchange between the Ranking
    Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, the witness, and I'm
    going to paraphrase, that Plyler didn't change any status; that
    the result of Plyler wasn't to change a legal status, but it
    does, effectively, say it would be bad; it would be bad for
    kids who are here illegally.
        Isn't this effectively, Mr. O'Brien, first, Mr. Rogers, an
    admission that Plyler should be struck down; that this was,
    effectively, a policy choice by the court, not a legal decision
    banked in--or based on the Fourteen Amendment? Mr. O'Brien,
    first.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes, the court, essentially, says that in its
    opinion. It admitted outright that illegal aliens are not a
    suspect classification and that there is no right to a free
    public education. Therefore, there shouldn't have been any
    issue before the court at all.
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Rogers, can you extrapolate on that?
        Mr. Rogers. Yes. It's absolutely a policy judgment. If
    judges have concerns about policies in America, they should run
    for office, but it's not their role to make policies as judges.
        Mr. Roy. Correct. Because there has been a lot of policy
    discussion in this hearing, but the question here is, as I put
    in the record the Heritage paper saying these States should be
    able to proceed with their policies and that Plyler should be
    struck down. It should be left to the States to decide or
    Congress to make policy.
        Mr. O'Brien, you referenced, the majority found that the
    Texas law imposed, quote, ``a lifetime of hardship on children
    with no responsibility for their immigration status taking an
    estimable toll,'' and that Texas' interest, quote, ``in the
    preservation of the State's limited resources with the
    education of its lawful residents did not outweigh the harm.''
    The court made a policy choice.
        Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. Correct?
        Mr. O'Brien. A hundred percent.
        Mr. Roy. They literally wrote out in their opinion a policy
    choice and preference. They did not root it in the Constitution
    or the law, as, frankly, was the standard of the day at that
    time. Right?
        We have already gone through, Mr. Rogers, do you
    acknowledge, in the Dobbs decision, laying out how we go back
    and review precedent? It is your position, correct, as you
    stated here--but I want to summarize and close--that you think
    that the court should review it; that they would have, under
    the Dobbs framework, the ability to review that precedent, and
    especially, in light of the error that was found in Dobbs'
    opinion and review of Roe, that we have got a similar
    legislating-from-the-bench problem, a policy choice that was
    made by judges to assert, in a 5-4 opinion, that the people of
    Texas could not make a decision on their behalf for their
    schools, for their education, for their taxpayer dollars, on
    how to deal with the failure of the Federal Government to
    secure the border and inundate our schools with people who are
    in the United States illegally? Do you believe that the court
    should review it, based on what I have just described?
        Mr. Rogers. Absolutely, it should review it. It should
    overturn Plyler. We've heard testimony about all the benefits
    from Plyler, but it's not a court's role to determine the
    financial benefits. That's for legislators to weigh and that's
    where this should belong--in State legislatures and in
    Congress.
        Mr. Roy. In closing here--with seven seconds left--do you
    believe that, if brought to the court, to the Supreme Court, if
    States were to take action--Mississippi, Texas, and other
    States have been taking to act on their behalf and pass
    policies--do you believe that, if taken to the court, that this
    Court would, in fact, overturn Plyler and side with the States?
        Mr. Rogers. I do.
        Mr. Roy. Well, with that, I now have my friend from Texas
    who has joined us here, and I would recognize Mr. Hunt for his
    five minutes.
        Mr. Hunt. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Under the Biden Administration, American students and
    parents were overlooked. This is a fact and we all know it.
    President Trump took decisive action to prevent illegal aliens
    from receiving free secondary education--which, by the way, is
    a very good thing. Now, we must also prevent illegals from
    accessing any taxpayer benefits, including K-12 education.
        As someone who was a product of school choice--me--whose
    parents drove me one hour each way, so I would get the
    education that they worked hard for me to actually attain and
    earn, I understand the importance of this hearing and the need
    to ensure opportunities are available to all American children
    who are tax-paying American children and tax-paying American
    families. Under zero circumstances should illegal aliens
    receive benefits that American families rightfully deserve.
        In the 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe, it declared that the
    1975 Texas law denying funds to public schools that enrolled
    illegal aliens was unconstitutional because it caused lifetime
    hardships on children who are not responsible for their
    immigration status. What about those legal citizens in this
    country that are also being overlooked, specifically, in Texas,
    my home State?
        During that case, it was argued that only a small number of
    students were illegal, suggesting this ruling would be
    insignificant. This decision was flawed then and it has become
    a harmful burden to the American youth today.
        The situation under Democrat control was the border crisis
    with over 20 million people entering this country--we have no
    idea who they were--and benefiting from the efforts of
    hardworking Americans. As we have discussed ad infinitum today,
    we are in so much debt that we can't even figure out how to get
    out of it, and the debt clock gets worse and worse and worse,
    and we are simply flat-out can't afford it.
        Somebody has to have the backbone, and somebody has to have
    the ability to call this out for what it is. It raises a very
    serious question: What could this money have done for American
    families? What could this money have done for American
    students?
        As somebody who is a believer in Christ, as somebody who
    believes in the good of America, as somebody that has fought
    for this country, and as somebody that has risked my life to
    defend this great Nation, I understand the need to want to help
    others, but, oh, my gosh, what about our own American citizens
    that are tax-paying Americans right here right now that should
    be put in first place? That's what this whole America First
    movement is all about. This is what I fought for.
        While I wish we could save the world, unfortunately, this
    is not going to work. We must protect ours first, just like any
    other country in the entire world would. You see, last I
    checked, I haven't seen any other country giving Americans
    piles of cash. We are the ones that are shipping our billions
    of dollars of hard-earned tax-paying dollars to everybody else,
    and no one wants to help us.
        My first question is for you, Ms. Drogin. Thank you very
    much for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. As a
    product of school choice, I want to personally thank you for
    your ongoing efforts at helping the future of our children.
        You say that Congress should consider legislation allowing
    States to collect and share immigration data for educational
    planning. Can you expand on this? In your opinion, what should
    be done with States that refuse to participate?
        Ms. Drogin. Yes, well, as I talked about, the ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter that, essentially, threatened districts or
    States for collecting it, that was the implied chilling effect
    of the letter.
        Mr. Hunt. Right.
        Ms. Drogin. The problem, obviously, there is you have
    educators, you have educating leaders that are afraid of this.
    They're afraid of the ramifications across our State, across
    our country. They're not collecting this data.
        Therefore, every time that we heard someone give
    statistics, whether it's how much they supposedly contribute,
    it's erroneous because it's not based in fact. We literally
    don't know, but we can estimate. We can estimate how much this
    cost.
        We can also go back and look at the students. While English
    second language or emergent bilingual is not a perfect
    description of students that are likely here illegally, it
    gives us some sort of idea of what's happening.
        What is happening is these students in these districts are
    causing negative ramifications across the board, whether it's
    in their classrooms, in their schools, in the entire districts
    that we are seeing being taken over by the State. That disrupts
    all the education. It is a crisis to not identify who these
    students are.
        Mr. Hunt. Uh-hum.
        Ms. Drogin. We do it with special ed. We even do it with
    incarcerated parents. It's just commonsense to say, who are the
    kids in our schools? Of course, we're not doing that now, and
    that creates a huge crisis, both on resources and on funding.
        Mr. Hunt. This is an issue of opportunity cost. If we are
    not helping American students, we are helping illegal--the
    children of illegal aliens that shouldn't be here in the first
    place. It means we are not helping an American student that
    deserves it.
        Ms. Drogin. That's right.
        Mr. Hunt. This is not a difficult concept. It is actually
    quite easy. No, I'm not a jerk. No, I'm not xenophobic. I
    believe in ensuring that we educate American citizens first.
    That is where our resources--it doesn't need to go there; it
    must go there.
        Thank you very much. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I thank the
    witnesses for their testimony.
        This concludes today's hearing.
        Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
    be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
    .aspx?EventID=119069.

                                     [all]