Oklahoma May Soon Ask K-12 Families for Proof of Citizenship
The state superintendent says the measure isn't intended to discourage undocumented parents from sending their kids to school. That's hard to believe.

Oklahoma is considering a rule change that would require parents to disclose their immigration status when attempting to enroll their children in public schools.
"In order to assess statewide and local educational needs…a parent or a legal guardian of a child, or an emancipated minor, shall provide proof of United States ('U.S.') citizenship at the time of enrollment," reads the proposed rule. The suggested changes also contain a provision requiring schools to report to the state the number of undocumented children enrolled.
So far, the rules have been approved by the Oklahoma State Department of Education, though they will need final approval from the Legislature and the governor.
The rule changes were subject to almost immediate outcry, with many advocates pointing out that undocumented children have had the constitutional right to enroll in U.S. public schools since the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe. Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters has insisted, however, that the new policy isn't intended to discourage undocumented parents from enrolling their children in school, but rather to keep track of how many kids don't have legal status. "I'm going to just start off by being crystal clear. Our rule around illegal immigration accounting is simply that it is to account for how many students of illegal immigrants are in our schools," Walters said during a Tuesday school board meeting.
"We want to make sure that all that information is gathered so that we can make decisions on where resources go and where personnel go," he added during the meeting. "And we can continue to make sure that Oklahoma is leading the country in education reform, but to do that…you have to have the data around where your kids are coming from."
However, Walters also said last week that he would comply with an executive order to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in schools and released a statement on Monday arguing that "schools are crippled by the flood of illegal immigrants," adding that "time and time again, the liberal media has demonstrated it does not understand the weight of the issues created by unchecked illegal immigration."
Advocacy groups have already begun arguing that Walters' new rules would violate Supreme Court precedent.
"All children have a constitutional right to equal access to education regardless of their citizenship or immigration status," reads a January letter from the National Immigration Law Center. "Requiring school districts to collect information about immigration status illegally chills access to this opportunity, interfering with their ability to focus on their core mission: to educate children and give all students the ability to grow, thrive, and participate fully in our democracy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Stop lying. Not 'undocumented' - illegal aliens who need to be deported as fast as possible. Every single one of them.
If the children were born here they're citizens, of course.
of course, not if subject to another jurisdiction.
Leave it to shrike to ignore the entire discussion because his fake British personality took US history in Britain.
If they were born here they are citizens and have nothing to fear dumdum. The order effects future anchor babies.
TIL that jus soli is only practiced in North and South America. It's unheard of in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and other places. Trump has also started questioning jus soli a lot more than other presidents have. It might not be a constitutional crisis, either. It's traditional in the Americas to allow jus soli, but it could change. It may no longer be "of course" if the law changes.
If the children were born here they're citizens, of course.
That is unclear and will probably be changing soon. Birthright citizenship is an historical New World aberration that needs to be corrected, to bring our immigration practices into line with the rest of the civilized world.
And for self preservation.
Sure. They can go home with mo and dad to their country.
Define "jurisdiction" of the United States. If their parents aren't citizens, then no.
If we can arrest them, they are in our jurisdiction. The only persons on US soil and not in US jurisdiction are diplomats and invading armies.
I'd support a constitutional amendment to limit birthright citizenship to
(1) Children of citizens, including children with one American and one foreign parent, and
(2) Children born on US soil to immigrant parent(s) who are here legally in a permanent resident status, and not diplomats.
But we need that new amendment to replace the clause in the 14th, which is quite clear.
The MAGA cultists have no place among libertarians. You are no more than a useless troll.
Can't justify the spending without accurate numbers, Emma.
Why assume evil thoughts?
Of course, if there were no government schools, this wouldn't be a national issue, would it?
Yeah, I'd go even further: proof of residency/ownership. I don't know about the OK school district specifically but here (IL) schools draw heavily from property taxes. Sure, renters pay in, but they do so indirectly and 3-4 families paying rent under one rental unit or multiple families contributing the same as one family and drawing out proportionately more is, obviously unequal/redistributionist/unfair/etc.
I could understand getting rid of the publicly funded school system entirely but advocating the above scheme specifically or intentionally short-changes/undermines the public school system in order to redistribute education dollars to people who pay in less, if at all.
Maybe the pay is really that bad and they want to get an early start on stealing some kids identities?
>> rule change that would require parents to disclose their immigration status
first, "requiring parents to disclose" ... second, "their citizenship status" ...
Nice catch. They always tell on themselves.
"I don't see what the problem is, just have the FBI spy on them after the fact either way, just in case." - The Left
"Huh? What? Did somebody say something?" - Reason
From what I read in another article, the north side of Fort Worth ISD needs to do this. A substitute teacher messaged ICE or something about checking all of the students there. Of course he has been suspended and the Fort Worth ISD is investigating (him, not the students). He alleges that the students use their Apple iPhone to translate whatever he says to Spanish so they can do their work. I think he was teaching (unironically) English at the time.
Are you trying to get them to crack down on the subscription requirement dude?
“Undocumented “ so you’re saying they’re citizens that lost their paperwork.
The census demands to know how many toilets I have in the house. I'm terrified they'll deport me for plumbing violations.
Soon they'll be described as discombobulated tourists.
Advocacy groups have already begun arguing that Walters' new rules would violate Supreme Court precedent.
Wrong. They're not saying that the children won't be enrolled.
Do they say “Show me your papers” in the original German?
If you were half as smart as you thought you are, you’d still need a keeper.
Michael Malice is the hero we don't deserve:
"I dont care, Margaret
Deport her
Then deport every corporate journalist, into the Gulf of America"
https://x.com/michaelmalice/status/1884310888100110836
The fact that these people think what they're doing is Holy or even respectable is just astounding.
People around here recently that have criticized the "Kill them all and let God sort them out." ideology from the early Crusades, clearly don't have a full conception of the context. I'd say, "Imagine white religious leaders going into minority Churches and shaming them for not adhering to social standards that exalt the white leaders' religious virtues, falsely claiming the name of a higher power." but they're doing that too.
Ironically, they're usually the same people who will look at police and say "One bad apple spoils he whole cart."
"All children have a constitutional right to equal access to education regardless of their citizenship or immigration status," reads a January letter from the National Immigration Law Center. "Requiring school districts to collect information about immigration status illegally chills access to this opportunity
Nonsense. No it doesn't. Collecting immigration status is in no way preventative of that child attending school and "accessing that opportunity."
See: Plyler v. Doe
You see it.
Plyler is about not denying them access to an education. They have access to it, reporting requirement or not.
Okay, we'll do it your way.
Why don't you tell the government how many guns you own.
What, you don't want to do that? You think the government might later on use that information against you?
Nonsense! The government would never do that! You can trust them! Right?
The government doesn't pay for my guns, nor does the taxpayer.
The schools on the other hand - the taxpayer, vis a vis the government, has a right to know where and how it's money is being spent.
If that means mommy and daddy illegals get a visit from ICE, well, shucks.
Comparing illegal immigrants to gun ownership is up there for horrible analogies.
Just wow.
It’s very Pedo Jeffy to do that.
We all understand the rules here, right?
"Real Muricans" have full liberty to do whatever the fuck they want. Even including vandalism at the US Capitol to stop an election that EVERYONE KNOWS was stolen. That is not a crime no matter how much property damage occurred and how many NAP violations occurred. Real patriots have an unlimited right to do whatever the fuck they want.
By contrast, illegal aliens have no rights at all. They can be rounded up at any point and be sent to a camp and who knows what happens to them. Inhumane conditions? Maybe! But who gives a fuck? They're illegals for heaven's sake! What if there are little kids who are citizens because they are born here? Well fuck 'em. Birthright citizenship isn't real because Trump said so. Deport 'em all, and let them sue in Federal court from Venezuela or wherever the fuck they go. Who gives a shit. The most important point here is to make sure that the True American Patriots have full rights to do whatever they want, and the Libtard Traitors live in fear that they will be executed.
By contrast, illegal aliens have no rights at all. They can be rounded up at any point and be sent to a camp and who knows what happens to them. Inhumane conditions? Maybe! But who gives a fuck? They're illegals for heaven's sake! What if there are little kids who are citizens because they are born here? Well fuck 'em. Birthright citizenship isn't real because Trump said so. Deport 'em all, and let them sue in Federal court from Venezuela or wherever the fuck they go. Who gives a shit.
Yea, you've pretty much got the gist of it with that part. But put more of an effort to curb your profanity, hmm?
You know...they are always free to go home. If they don't like where they are being put, home exists as an alternative. We are under zero obligation to humor criminals who should not be here at all.
Trying to pretend it's like the rounding up of the Jews all over again is laughable and, predictably, lame.
Now you're getting it.
You don’t believe in citizenship. We get it. But Americans do. So leave, and never come back.
Nor does any non-citizen have any constitutional rights. The rights enumerated and guaranteed in our constitution apply only to citizens, free blacks were citizens and had their rights, slaves were not citizens and didn't have rights. No French citizen suddenly becomes an American whose rights are guaranteed by the constitution just by walking into the nation, much less breaking in.
Nor does any non-citizen have any constitutional rights.
Yeah, this is part and parcel to the inversion of the intent of The Constitution and Founding documents.
They aren't what would objectively be a clear set of instructions limiting what a government may not do to its own citizens, they are a sheepskin that Statists can wear as a divine mandate to impose their behavior and desires on everyone. If you think The Constitution not just doesn't, but can't give Mexicans in any arbitrary region deemed as Mexico the right to free speech you're a bigot. If you point out that if it gave them the right to free speech in any arbitrary region deemed as Mexico, it also gives them the right to bear arms and subjects them to taxation under the Commerce Clause, you're a dangerous, white supremacist bigot.
It could be the basis for billing the federal government for the costs of educating illegal migrants. The feds failed to protect the border. The people of Oklahoma shouldn't have to foot the bill. Of course, we could say that the taxpayers of the USA shouldn't have to foot the bill, but that's not how it currently works.
NOw here is a clash with REASON's view on the OK Catholic school case. If you don't want to be carded about citizenship take the Catholic option. 🙂
as a citizen you have to prove your kids vaccination status and sometimes prove who the guardians are so i have no problem requiring proof of being a citizen
The amount of questions I have to answer at enrollment, every friggin year, is ridiculous. And I’m pretty sure that’s already one of them.