The Delta Issue #90

Denying undocumented students access to education isn’t just wrong—it’s also an operational disaster.

Hi y’all, Jessica here.

Immigration enforcement has no business inside a school building. None.

Back in January, we wrote about how increased immigration enforcement affects classrooms. Teachers in Minnesota described hallways that felt like ghost towns, with kids carrying passports in their backpacks and wondering where their friends had gone.

Now, state legislatures in Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee are trying to pull schools into the immigration enforcement apparatus by introducing bills that would force school administrators to check a child’s immigration status before permitting them to enroll.

Since 1982, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe has protected every child’s right to a public education, no matter their immigration status. But with states now attempting to pass policies limiting access to public education, it is looking increasingly likely that a challenge to Plyler is close at hand.

To understand what this means for kids and teachers, I sat down with my friend and colleague Hanseul Kang . Hanseul is the former Assistant Dean and Executive Director of the Broad Center at Yale School of Management . Before that, she served as DC State Superintendent of Education and Chief of Staff at the Tennessee Department of Education .

In March, Hanseul wrote an op-ed calling these policies not just morally wrong, but an operational disaster for the schools that would be tasked with carrying them out. She was also once undocumented herself, and almost nobody can speak to both the policy and the personal the way she can.

In today’s conversation, we talk about why immigration enforcement is no longer “just an immigration issue,” but an educational one, too

The transcript below has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Jessica: Welcome to The Delta. I’m Jessica Baghian , President of Watershed Advisors . Today I’m joined by a dear friend and colleague, Hanseul Kang, former Assistant Dean and Executive Director of the Broad Center at Yale School of Management , and previously DC State Superintendent of Education and Chief of Staff at the Tennessee Department of Education .

We’re here to talk about a wave of legislation in states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee that would require public schools to verify students’ citizenship or immigration status before enrollment. In Tennessee, House Bill 793 has come close to passing for the second year in a row.

Hanseul spoke out against this policy in an op-ed, calling it not just morally wrong, but an operational disaster. I wanted to have her on because her perspective is especially important for those leading state and district systems. Hanseul, thank you for being here.

Hanseul: Thanks so much for having me.

Jessica: This issue is not just professional for you, but deeply personal. You’ve shared that you came to the U.S. as an infant and didn’t learn you were undocumented until you were 16. What was that moment like?

Hanseul: It completely reshaped how I saw myself and what I thought was possible. Up until then, I was a strong student, involved in activities, and felt like my future was wide open.

Then suddenly, I learned there were things I couldn’t do: get a driver’s license, work, qualify for financial aid, or even know if college was possible.

More than the specific limitations, it changed how I understood structural barriers. It’s a big part of why I’ve dedicated my career to public education.

Jessica: You were able to attend public school because of the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe. Can you explain what that decision established?

Hanseul: Plyler v. Doe was a 1982 Supreme Court case. Texas had passed a law allowing districts to deny funding, or charge tuition, for students who were not “legally admitted” to the U.S.

The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. They found that all children, regardless of immigration status, have a right to public education.

The ruling didn’t just prohibit outright bans; it also prohibited policies that would discourage enrollment.

Jessica: Let’s bring that to the present. What does Tennessee’s House Bill 793 actually do?

Hanseul: There are a few versions, but broadly, the bill would require schools to determine students’ citizenship or immigration status and report it to the state. Some versions would also allow districts to charge tuition to undocumented students.

Even the “milder” version, just collecting and reporting status, raises serious concerns.

First, it would discourage enrollment. Families may avoid schools entirely, especially if they lack documentation like birth certificates or passports.
Second, it places an impossible burden on school staff. Immigration status is complex, and asking educators to make those determinations is both unrealistic and high-stakes.
Third, it fundamentally changes the role of schools, from places of learning and community to extensions of immigration enforcement.

Jessica: Some argue that charging tuition is a reasonable compromise. Why doesn’t that hold up?

Hanseul: Because tuition becomes a barrier in practice. It may not be an outright ban, but it effectively prevents access, something Plyler explicitly prohibits.

It also undermines what public schools are meant to be: spaces that welcome all children. At a time when civic spaces are shrinking, schools are one of the few places where communities come together. Policies like this fracture that.

Jessica: We’re also seeing similar efforts in other states and at the federal level. Do you expect these laws to be challenged?

Hanseul: Yes, many of these efforts are intentionally designed to challenge Plyler and bring the issue back to the Supreme Court.

But what worries me just as much are quieter changes, like restricting access to programs or benefits. These can happen without much visibility and still significantly impact students.

This isn’t just an immigration issue—it’s an education issue. The protections under Plyler have shaped how schools operate, including decisions like not requiring Social Security numbers to ensure all families feel welcome.

Jessica: What feels different about this current wave of policy?

Hanseul: It feels like a step backward. When I was in high school, there were very few pathways for undocumented students, no access to financial aid, limited college options.

Over time, policies like DACA and state-level changes expanded opportunities. Now, we’re seeing movement in the opposite direction.

What’s especially concerning is the risk of creating a permanent underclass—something the Supreme Court explicitly warned against in Plyler.

We have young people who want to contribute to this country, and we’re limiting their access to education and opportunity.

Jessica: To close on a more hopeful note, what’s giving you optimism right now?

Hanseul: The people.

In Tennessee, I’ve been encouraged by the educators, advocates, and especially young people speaking out against these policies. They’re showing up and making clear that this isn’t the kind of community they want to build.

That gives me hope, and it’s a reminder that adults need to meet that energy with action.

Jessica: Thank you so much, Hanseul, for sharing your perspective and your story.

And thank you to everyone watching or listening. You can find this conversation on YouTube, LinkedIn, and podcast platforms.