NEWYou can now listen to articles!
Tennessee lawmakers have taken a bold stand against the misuse of taxpayer dollars in public education. On March 10, House Bill 793 advanced out of a full committee with a 15-9 vote, divided mostly along party lines, with Republicans in favor and all seven Democrats opposed. The proposal is scheduled to be heard on the House floor on March 16.
The measure now requires public and charter school officials to verify students’ immigration status at enrollment and report the aggregate results to the state. The proposal originally empowered school officials to deny enrollment to students who could not prove lawful presence in the United States or to charge their families tuition. That provision remains in the Senate’s version – which already passed that chamber 19 to 13 – but opponents to the measure later stripped it out of the House proposal.
This proposal represents the bare minimum in addressing a long-standing injustice, yet it falls far short of what is truly needed. Requiring verification and reporting data sheds light on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools, but it does nothing to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their education.
In Tennessee, as in many states, per-student allocations drive budgets, meaning districts gain financially from admitting more students, regardless of immigration status. Lawmakers must go further by prohibiting public schools from using any tax dollars to educate those unlawfully present. Such a ban would redirect resources exclusively to lawful residents and citizens, allowing per-student funding to surge for eligible children without necessitating tax increases.
OVER 100 CALIFORNIA COLLEGES ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US-BORN STUDENTS IN NEW DOJ COMPLAINT
The Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on Friday, June 28, 2024. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The relief would extend beyond school budgets. Property taxes, which predominantly finance public education systems, exert constant upward pressure on homeowners. By excluding illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded schooling, state policymakers could alleviate this strain, stabilizing or even reducing property tax rates while enhancing educational quality for legal enrollees.
At the heart of this issue lies the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which compels state officials to provide free public education to children of illegal immigrants. That ruling, decided 5-4 by a less conservative court than today, imposes an unwarranted federal obligation on states to divert scarce resources toward entitlements for those without legal status.
Education policy, particularly the allocation of limited funds, belongs in the hands of state legislatures, not dictated by unelected judges. States possess the sovereign right to prioritize their citizens and legal residents, especially when federal immigration enforcement failed spectacularly under the previous presidential administration.
DOJ CHALLENGES VIRGINIA LAW GRANTING IN-STATE TUITION TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Today’s Supreme Court has an opportunity to rectify this overreach. Conservatives in Tennessee and elsewhere should welcome legal challenges to HB 793, particularly from teachers’ unions eager to preserve the status quo. These unions profit doubly from illegal immigrant enrollment: first, through inflated per-student funding tied to higher headcounts, and second, via supplemental allocations for English as a Second Language (ESL) programs.
Union leaders would likely hesitate to escalate a fight to the Supreme Court, recognizing the risk. A victory for Tennessee could dismantle Plyler nationwide, inspiring a cascade of similar reforms. The precedent would empower legislatures to reclaim control over education spending, removing the incentives that exacerbate illegal immigration. Rather than fearing litigation, policymakers should provoke it, confident that the current court would affirm states’ authority to manage their own affairs.
Public sentiment aligns firmly against the current policy. Phi Delta Kappa International/Gallup poll found that 55% of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to educate children of illegal immigrants, with 81% of Republicans agreeing.
GOP FIREBRAND URGES TRUMP AGENCIES TO CLAW BACK MASSIVE TAXPAYER BENEFITS PAID OUT TO IMMIGRANTS
These numbers reflect a commonsense view: American taxpayers should not shoulder the costs of federal border failures. Education represents a significant investment in the nation’s future, and diluting that investment by extending it to those outside the legal framework undermines equity for citizens.
Momentum builds beyond Tennessee. Since early 2025, legislators in Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, Indiana and New Jersey have pursued measures to contest Plyler v. Doe, ranging from data collection on immigration status to outright tuition requirements. These initiatives signal a growing recognition that unchecked illegal immigration burdens public systems, from schools to hospitals.
Education policy, particularly the allocation of limited funds, belongs in the hands of state legislatures, not dictated by unelected judges.
In Texas, where Plyler originated, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has long advocated revisiting the decision, citing the unsustainable fiscal strain on local districts. Oklahoma’s proposals mandate proof of status for enrollment, while Idaho and Indiana saw bills advance through committees before stalling. Even in blue-leaning New Jersey, lawmakers introduced the “PLYLER Act” to impose tuition on undocumented students.
TENNESSEE DEMOCRAT PROPOSES NEW BILL LIMITING ICE FROM SCHOOL CAMPUSES STATEWIDE
Critics of these efforts often invoke compassion, arguing that denying education harms innocent children. Yet the real harm stems from policies that encourage illegal entry by promising free services, perpetuating a cycle of dependency and straining resources meant for legal residents.
States like Tennessee invest billions in education to foster opportunity, but that promise erodes when funds are spread thinner to accommodate those who bypassed the system. Overturning Plyler would restore fairness, allowing states to focus on their own communities without apology.
The fiscal implications demand attention. Nationwide, educating illegal immigrant students costs billions annually, with estimates varying by state but consistently revealing a disproportionate load on taxpayers.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OPINION
The influx strains classrooms, necessitates more ESL teachers and inflates administrative costs. By contrast, excluding these students from taxpayer funding would free up resources for class size reductions, teacher salary increases and program enhancements for lawful enrollees. Property owners, weary of annual tax hikes to cover expanding enrollments, would finally see relief.
Plyler exacerbates illegal immigration by mandating education as an entitlement, regardless of status. The Supreme Court could end this mandate, returning power to the states where it belongs.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE APP
Tennessee’s HB 793, though imperfect, ignites a necessary debate. Lawmakers should strengthen it by banning tax-funded education for illegal immigrants outright, then defend it vigorously in court. The proposal would not only safeguard taxpayer dollars but also deter future illegal entries by removing a key pull factor.
Americans have waited too long for relief from policies that prioritize outsiders over citizens. The time has come for the Supreme Court to overturn Plyler v. Doe and let states chart their own course.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY COREY DEANGELIS
