Maestros demandan por medidas migratorias de Trump, dicen que estudiantes no asisten a clases
Summary
Unions representing millions of teachers and school staff — notably the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — have joined a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden-era reversal by the Department of Homeland Security that allows immigration arrests in so-called “sensitive places” including schools and churches. Plaintiffs say increased immigration enforcement near campuses is frightening pupils and families, reducing attendance and participation in school programmes. The suit collects accounts from teachers, school leaders and faith communities describing masked arrests, broken car windows and children exposed to traumatic enforcement actions.
Key Points
- The NEA and AFT filed an updated federal lawsuit arguing DHS policy change violates legal protections for “sensitive places” such as schools and houses of worship.
- Teachers report heightened anxiety, lower attendance and declines in enrolment in services for immigrant children (including special education and English-learning classes).
- Cases cited include masked agents conducting arrests in school parking lots and a preschool incident in Oregon where a parent was pulled from a car after dropping a child off.
- Nevada governor Joe Lombardo vetoed a 2025 bill (AB217) that would have barred immigration enforcement from school grounds and prevented sharing student information with immigration authorities.
- The DHS says arrests in schools or churches should be rare and require supervisory approval, but plaintiffs say the revocation of prior guidance has had a chilling effect on families and faith communities.
Content summary
The article describes how national teachers’ unions and local educators have joined an existing suit brought by farmworkers and churches in Oregon. The complaint challenges the DHS decision to rescind a long-standing memo that steered agents away from “sensitive places.” Teachers and school officials provide testimony of disrupted classrooms, emergency lockdowns, and families withdrawing children or avoiding school interactions for fear of immigration enforcement. The piece also notes public officials’ responses: DHS insists arrests at schools will be rare and supervised, while some local leaders in Clark County say they have assurances federal agents will not operate on school property. Politically, Nevada’s governor vetoed a proposed state-level protection bill, prompting criticism from educators who sought stronger local safeguards.
Context and relevance
This story sits at the intersection of education policy, immigration enforcement and child welfare. It matters for school leaders, teachers, parent groups and policymakers because changes to federal enforcement practice can directly affect school attendance, provision of special education and language services, and the psychological safety of students. It also highlights a wider national debate about how immigration policy is implemented in community institutions and the legal avenues public organisations are using to push back.
Why should I read this?
Quick — because this is about kids, classrooms and whether families feel safe enough to send their children to school. If you care about attendance, school funding, inclusion or the wellbeing of immigrant families, this explains why enforcement policy is already rippling through school corridors and church pews. It’s a short-cut to the real-world impact of a federal policy change.
Author style
Punchy: the piece pulls together legal action, frontline teacher testimony and local political moves — showing how an abstract policy shift becomes a concrete problem in schools. If you work in education or community advocacy, read the details — they matter.