Join
Contact

Resources In light of Recent Immigration Policy Changes

Resources in light of recent immigration policy changes: SSDA remains committed to an atmosphere of inclusion, respect, and security

The Small School Districts' Association (SSDA) affirms the principle that every student deserves a safe, secure, and focused educational environment on school campuses. Schools must remain places of learning, growth, and opportunity—not venues for political disruption or activities that create fear or uncertainty within our communities.

Recent news reports have raised concerns that could incite anxiety and disrupt the educational process on school campuses. SSDA firmly upholds the constitutional obligation to provide every child who walks through school doors with a free and appropriate education in a safe and protected space, regardless of background or status. We are committed to working with federal and state authorities, agencies, and our communities to uphold these values and to ensure that students and educators thrive in an atmosphere of inclusion, respect, and security.

It is essential that schools remain free from activities or rhetoric that distract from their core mission or create unnecessary stress. SSDA will continue to advocate for the integrity of our campuses as safe spaces, focused on the well-being and success of every student.

Quick Guide for School Officials

Resources

Understanding that Californians may have questions about public programs, mixed immigration status within their families, or the impact of federal immigration policies on their daily lives, the websites below offer valuable resources to help address those concerns. These resources are designed for families as well as organizations that support immigrant communities, including schools, local governments, and community groups. The site will also provide updates to reflect changes in federal policies.

Immigration & CA Families Resources

Capitol Advisors

From Kevin Gordon, President, Capitol Advisors:

The Trump Administration’s early Executive Orders, we wanted to report specifically on his action to rescind the policy that has prevented the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol agencies from conducting immigration raids in what have been considered “sensitive areas,” including schools, churches and hospitals.

The announcement of the Administration’s action is here. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) has provided a factsheet that contains information about the previous policy and the implications of the rescission for previously protected areas, including TK-12 schools. While you can read the entire factsheet here, below we excerpt some of the most important portions for your review.

We understand there is great concern and confusion about the implications of this rescission and the impacts on your students and families, and we want to emphasize that though the former protections were rescinded, federal immigration agencies have not yet indicated that they are preparing for coordinated activities at these locations. The new directive encourages any enforcement actions in these paces to take place using what they characterize as “common sense,” and we will have to wait to see how federal agencies interpret that. We are working closely with the Newsom Administration to get answers to your questions, and will keep you posted as new, concrete information emerges.

Key Points from NILC Memo

Since 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has maintained standing guidance requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to refrain from immigration enforcement actions in certain areas (previously known as “Sensitive Locations”). In 2021, the Biden Administration issued a new memo expanding the definitions of these areas, which included schools (including preschools, K-12 schools, and higher education institutions); healthcare facilities (including hospitals, doctor’s offices, and community health clinics); places of worship; places where children gather (including playgrounds and bus stops); social services establishments (such as domestic violence shelters and food pantries); disaster/emergency response sites (including evacuation routes); weddings, funerals, and religious ceremonies; and parades, demonstrations, and rallies. The memo also specified that officers should refrain from enforcement actions “near” these protected areas, including surrounding areas like sidewalks, entrances, and parking lots. Lastly, the Biden Administration issued a separate memorandum limiting the circumstances in which immigration enforcement actions could take place in courthouses. The Trump Administration has not clarified if all three memos were rescinded—or if it will issue a new one—though it has stated explicitly that ICE could take enforcement action in schools and churches.  

All people in the United States have certain rights regardless of immigration status. However, now that the protected areas (aka “sensitive locations”) and courthouse memos have been rescinded, these areas no longer enjoy special protections from ICE enforcement. Instead, individuals will need to rely on basic constitutional protections in these spaces. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment protects all individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment ensures the right to remain silent when confronted by law enforcement. Certain states and localities have enacted laws and policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, though they do not prevent ICE from taking enforcement actions in these areas.  

 Note an important caveat to the above protections: within 100 miles of a land or sea border—where two thirds of the US population reside—Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has special legal authority to board buses, trains, and boats in order to search for individuals without lawful status. Although individuals in these zones retain the right to remain silent, their Fourth Amendment rights are reduced by the federal laws that allow CBP to conduct these searches. 
Yes, but only for places within those areas that are considered private, since the Fourth Amendment protects areas where people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In the context of protected areas, areas open to the public such as lobbies, waiting areas and parking lots are considered public, while interior areas and those marked “private” with a sign are considered private. For immigration enforcement to search or enter a private area within a formerly protected area, the Fourth Amendment requires a valid judicial warrant signed by a federal judge unless staff at those areas consent to the search. Note that the same caveats as above apply to formerly protected areas within 100 miles of the border.  
Yes, under some circumstances. If ICE agents enter a formerly protected area—either a public area or by gaining access to a private area through a warrant or consent—they can arrest people if they have a valid administrative warrant for that person or if they have probable cause to believe that the person is “removable” from the United States—i.e. the person does not have current lawful status or that they have engaged in conduct such as involvement in the criminal legal system that gives ICE the authority to begin deportation proceedings against them. Probable cause can be established through questioning of individuals who disclose their immigration status or documentation that indicates they are noncitizens— which is why it is so important to remain silent! Running from ICE agents can also establish probable cause.  

The Newsom Administration, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Legislative leaders have voiced unequivocal support for keeping ICE agents off school campuses. The Administration has compiled resources that can be accessed here. 

Though slowed by the fires in Southern California, the Legislature is working to appropriate $50 million for the State to push back on the federal government, including $25 million to fund legal aid for immigrant defense.  

Additionally, Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) has introduced AB 49, which would prevent school agencies and day care centers from allowing ICE agents onto their campuses without a warrant and approval from the superintendent or director.  In the Senate, SB 48 by Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) would prohibit an LEA and its personnel from disclosing the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employee, or teacher to federal immigration or enforcement officers without a judicial warrant, and regarding a pupil’s educational records or personal information, without the written consent of the pupil’s parent or guardian. SB 48 would also prohibit California law enforcement agencies from collaborating with, or providing any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employee, or teacher to immigration authorities regarding proposed or active immigration enforcement actions when the actions could be or are taking place within a radius of one mile of any school site. SB 48 would go into effect immediately if passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.