The National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers' union in the United States, recently held its annual convention.
However, the resolutions passed during this convention, which were leaked by a union member, were not focused on enhancing the quality of education. Instead, they were aimed at opposing the Trump administration.
According to The Blaze, one resolution pledged the union's commitment to "defend birthright citizenship," while another supported students' rights to protest against ICE raids and deportations.
A third resolution expressed support for "the mass democratic movement against Trumps authoritarianism" and "the Los Angeles-based movement to defeat Trumps attempt to use federal forces against the state of California and other states and communities."
The use of taxpayer money to fund education for illegal immigrants is a direct violation of the rule of law and encourages further illegal immigration. These resolutions further demonstrate that teachers' unions are more interested in political activism than in prioritizing education.
NEA President Becky Pringle's position as an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee further exposes the true nature of teachers' unions. They are essentially an extension of the Democratic Party, pushing a radical agenda that burdens taxpayers with the cost of K-12 education for illegal immigrants.
With a Supreme Court leaning towards conservative values and increasing public support for immigration enforcement, it is time to reconsider the 1982 ruling that mandated states to provide free public education to children irrespective of their immigration status. Overturning this decision would restore fairness for taxpayers and align education policy with the will of the American people.
The original ruling was decided by a narrow 5-4 vote, indicating a deep division even at the time. The current court, reshaped by President Trump's appointments, has a stronger constitutional foundation to overturn it. The legal landscape has changed, and the original ruling, which was shaky then, appears even weaker now.
Conservative scholars argue that the 43-year-old ruling exceeded federal authority by forcing states to allocate resources for individuals who are not lawfully present. States have a sovereign right to prioritize their citizens and legal residents when allocating finite resources. Furthermore, conservative legal scholars argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was used to justify the decision, does not mandate states to educate those in the country unlawfully. This clause was written to protect citizens and lawful residents, not to extend taxpayer-funded benefits to those who violate immigration law.
Forcing taxpayers to pay for the education of illegal immigrants undermines the rule of law and encourages more illegal entry. Public sentiment aligns with this view. A June CBS News/YouGov survey found that 54% of Americans support President Trumps deportation efforts. A June InsiderAdvantage poll found that 59% of Americans, including 89% of Republicans, support Trumps decision to deploy National Guard and federal military in downtown Los Angeles.
A 2013 Phi Delta Kappa International/Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund education for children of illegal immigrants, with a staggering 81% of Republican voters in agreement.
Public school funding is tied to enrollment. More students, regardless of their legal status, mean more money for school districts. Illegal immigrant students often qualify as English language learners, which brings in even more per-pupil funding through federal and state grants.
The increase in English learners creates a demand for specialized teachers. Hiring more staff means more union members and more dues. The unions grow stronger and richer with every new student who requires extra services.
When teachers' unions protest immigration enforcement or criticize Trump administration policies, they are not defending children. They are protecting their financial interests. They prioritize financial and political power over the interests of American citizens and legal residents, and they expect taxpayers to continue footing the bill.
Two strategies could potentially overturn the 1982 ruling. First, states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are expanding school choice programs that exclude illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded benefits such as private school scholarships and education savings accounts. These programs give parents greater control over their childrens education, but unions have launched aggressive campaigns to block them.
If unions sue to stop these programs on the grounds that they violate the 1982 ruling, they are likely to lose. The ruling required states to provide education to illegal immigrants. It said nothing about private scholarships or alternative funding streams.
The courts conservative majority could uphold these state programs and clarify that the 1982 ruling does not apply outside the public school system. Such a decision wouldnt just protect school choice it could also erode the precedent and clear a path to overturn it entirely.
The second strategy involves red-state lawmakers taking direct aim at the 1982 ruling. Republican legislators in states like Tennessee have introduced bills to block taxpayer funding for the K-12 education of illegal immigrants. Tennessee recently put its bill on hold while seeking federal guidance on whether the move would jeopardize broader education funding.
If teachers unions sue to stop these laws, they risk a high-stakes loss. A legal defeat could weaken the 1982 ruling and give states new authority to draw clear lines around who qualifies for taxpayer-funded education. One ruling could reshape national policy and force a long-overdue debate about who pays, who benefits, and who decides.
The NEAs resolutions reflect a desperate attempt to preserve a broken status quo. Its opposition to border enforcement isnt about students its about protecting funding, growing membership, and consolidating power. The Supreme Court should revisit the 1982 ruling and reaffirm a basic principle: Taxpayer resources must serve those who respect the rule of law.
Login