[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]