Public schools, churches, and hospitals in North Texas may no longer be immune from immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump issued a directive Monday permitting federal agents to operate in or near these previously protected “sensitive areas” as first reported by The Dallas Morning News.
The decision has sparked fear among immigrant families, who worry about the risks of attending schools or visiting sacred spaces. Despite the constitutional right for all children to receive an education, undocumented families are questioning the safety of school campuses moving forward. Videos circulating on social media, such as one showing people photocopying proof of citizenship for their children, illustrate how families are responding to this uncertain environment. This raises the question: how are children processing this shift?
According to the U.S. U.S. Department of Education:
“All children in the United States are entitled to equal access to a basic public elementary and secondary education regardless of their actual or perceived race, color, national origin, citizenship, immigration status, or the status of their parents/guardians”. The Department adds that school districts cannot prohibit or discourage children from enrolling in schools due to the immigration status of the student or their parents. Furthermore, districts:
- Cannot require a child’s social security number for enrollment.
- Cannot demand the parent’s state-issued identification or driver’s license as a requirement.
- May request documents like birth certificates to verify age but cannot deny enrollment based on foreign-issued documents or a lack of these records.
- A school district may not bar your child from enrolling if you choose not to provide your child’s race or ethnicity.
So now, a place that has always been seen as neutral, with the sole purpose of learning and education, is going to feel like a battlefield—not because of school personnel, but due to external forces.
“Families are terrified that places they’ve always viewed as safe, like schools or churches, could now become grounds for enforcement,” said Cassie Stewart from the Dallas-based Rio Valley Relief Project to The Dallas Morning News. Advocates are concerned about the impact on children and their right to education, a right upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982.
According to The Dallas Morning News, the directive could impact thousands of families, as nearly 900,000 U.S. citizen children in Texas have at least one undocumented parent. Additionally, approximately 700,000 undocumented school-aged children reside in the U.S.
District officials in North Texas have reassured families that, in the event of a parent’s detention, school staff will care for students until an authorized adult arrives. The Dallas Independent School District (DISD) has even highlighted resources on its homepage, reminding families: “Children have a constitutional right to have equal access to education regardless of their immigration status or their parents’ status.”
The combination of gun violence concerns and the potential for immigration raids on school grounds poses significant challenges. Advocates question the message being sent to children about their safety in educational environments. Are schools meant to be havens of learning, or battlegrounds for policy enforcement?
The Trump administration justifies the directive by claiming it prevents criminals from using sensitive areas as shelters. Critics, however, argue that enforcement in schools and churches could have far-reaching consequences for families and communities. Andres Larraza, a deacon at St. Cecilia Catholic Parish, expressed concern about the emotional toll on his congregation.
“Even if I’m not directly affected, the suffering of the people I serve weighs on all of us,” he told The Dallas Morning News.
Are places of faith now going to be targeted, and is that going to be seen as acceptable just because an undocumented immigrant might be inside a church?
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. According to the United States Courts, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion, which historically meant banning state-sponsored churches, like the Church of England. On the other hand, the Free Exercise Clause protects citizens’ right to practice their religion as they please, provided their practices do not violate “public morals” or a “compelling” governmental interest. While these two clauses sometimes conflict, federal courts, with the Supreme Court as the final authority, are responsible for resolving such issues.
This framework highlights the protection citizens have from government interference in their religious beliefs, as long as those beliefs don’t breach public morals or governmental interests. Yet, this raises significant concerns about how disturbing sacred spaces—many of which are deeply committed to providing social services, including aid to immigrants—respects these constitutional principles.