Governor Kevin Stitt Blocks Plan to Track Immigration Status of Students

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Governor Stitt rejected a proposal on February 13, 2025, to collect students’ immigration status in Oklahoma public schools.
• The decision aligns with Plyler vs. Doe, preventing states from denying education based on immigration status under the 14th Amendment.
• Advocacy groups fear such policies deter school access; public protests have escalated, amplifying criticism of Superintendent Walters.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has firmly rejected a controversial proposal to collect the immigration status of students in the state’s public schools. Announced during his February 13, 2025, news conference, this decision has sparked wide debate across Oklahoma’s political and educational arenas, highlighting key issues at the intersection of immigration policies and public education.

The proposal, championed by State Superintendent Ryan Walters and approved by the State Board of Education, would have required schools to collect and possibly share students’ immigration status with federal authorities. Walters’ plan followed the Trump administration’s removal of immigration enforcement protections for places like schools, hospitals, and churches. However, Stitt stood in opposition, arguing that such a move is not linked to preserving public safety. He stated, “Collecting 6-, 7-, 8-year-old kids’ addresses and immigration status in the state of Oklahoma, that’s not a public safety issue.”

Governor Kevin Stitt Blocks Plan to Track Immigration Status of Students

Stitt’s Position on Immigration Status Checks

Governor Stitt’s rejection of the plan marks a divide within his own Republican Party. While some party members have leaned towards stricter immigration measures, Stitt differentiated between addressing public safety and targeting students in classrooms. He emphasized that pursuing immigration enforcement via data collection from young children diverges from core public safety goals.

The governor’s stance is also rooted in established legal precedent. The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler vs. Doe prevents states from denying education to students based on their immigration status. The decision interprets the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, noting that every child has the right to education, regardless of their legal status. Stitt echoed this sentiment, steering clear of any policy that risks violating this landmark ruling.

Broader Political and Educational Context

Tensions surrounding this issue are not isolated. They reflect broader political unrest in Oklahoma’s education system. On February 11, just days before rejecting the immigration status check proposal, Stitt removed three members of the State Board of Education. He attributed the move to “needless political drama” under Walters’ leadership and the state’s consistent placement in the bottom 10 of national education rankings. The latest data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) revealed disappointing test scores, further complicating the state’s educational challenges.

Stitt directly criticized Walters, accusing him of prioritizing political skirmishes and media attention over enhancing students’ academic outcomes. “When you’ve got failing test scores and you’ve got this kind of turmoil and drama, and he’s the superintendent of education, he needs to be held accountable,” Stitt said. This criticism has only escalated the strained relationship between the governor and the state superintendent, with Stitt openly acknowledging that their working relationship is “not very good at all.”

Public and Advocacy Group Responses

The pushback against the immigration status proposal has not been limited to government corridors. Advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and many Oklahomans have voiced opposition. Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center, warned that implementing such a policy could deter immigrant families from accessing education. According to Espíritu, this would undermine schools’ primary mission of providing education to all children.

Public discontent has been evident as well. Over the past several weeks, hundreds of residents rallied at the state Capitol and around schools to protest the proposal. These protests underline the significant concern many Oklahomans share about the potential negative impact on both students and broader community trust in educational institutions.

Continued Support for Immigration Enforcement

While opposing this specific measure, Stitt has not altogether abandoned strict immigration initiatives. He continues to back Operation Guardian, an initiative unique to Oklahoma that aligns with former President Trump’s immigration priorities. The program is designed to remove undocumented violent offenders from state jails and prisons, focusing its efforts on those who pose a direct threat to public safety. This distinction reflects Stitt’s selective approach in addressing immigration concerns without compromising educational access for children.

Political Fallout within Oklahoma

The fallout from Stitt’s decision has created ripples in state politics, drawing both praise and criticism. Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, have expressed approval for the governor’s action. Kirt remarked that rejecting the proposal might pave the way for positive changes in Oklahoma’s struggling schools.

However, the decision has fueled tensions from Republican opponents. State Superintendent Ryan Walters, widely considered one of Stitt’s political rivals, accused the governor of opposing the wishes of Oklahoma citizens and ignoring a mandate from former President Trump. Walters framed Stitt as part of the “swampy political establishment” Trump has fought against, further escalating partisan divisions.

Adding to the political turbulence is Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, another Republican governor hopeful for 2026. Drummond, once seen as a moderate voice, amplified Walters’ criticism on social media, casting doubt on Stitt’s conservative values.

Even within the restructured State Board of Education, conflicts linger. Remaining board members Sarah Lepak and Zach Archer have resisted some of Walters’ more controversial decisions. Lepak questioned Walters’ effort to mandate classroom Bibles, while Archer worked to end monthly in-person updates required for Tulsa Public Schools. These internal disagreements underscore the divisions within Oklahoma’s education leadership, even after Stitt’s direct intervention.

Challenges Ahead for Oklahoma’s Education System

Governor Stitt’s actions highlight the deep challenges Oklahoma faces in reforming its education system and addressing political infighting. While rejecting the immigration status checks has drawn national attention, broader questions about education reforms remain unresolved. With the state continuing to rank near the bottom for academic achievement, many worry that political battles are diverting focus away from much-needed improvements in student performance and teacher support.

Looking forward, the immigration status check proposal remains a contentious issue in Oklahoma’s Legislature. How lawmakers respond to Stitt’s open opposition will likely shape public education policy for years to come. Additionally, this debate exposes the larger, ongoing tension between federal immigration actions—such as those initiated during the Trump presidency—and their local impacts on schools, communities, and families.

The Governor’s Role Moving Forward

By rejecting Ryan Walters’ immigration status check plan, Kevin Stitt has taken a deliberate step to align the state with educational priorities over punitive measures targeting students. His continued focus on Operation Guardian reaffirms his commitment to public safety without stepping into territory legally protected by federal rulings like Plyler vs. Doe.

Nonetheless, the governor’s ability to lead Oklahoma through educational reform is under scrutiny. The polarizing environment within state political leadership—and competing visions between figures like Stitt and Walters—leaves Oklahoma navigating turbulent waters. Early signs indicate that as campaign preparations for the 2026 gubernatorial race begin, political rhetoric may intensify, further complicating governance.

Oklahoma’s complex mix of immigration concerns, statewide educational struggles, and political infighting ensures the spotlight will remain on state leaders. Governor Stitt’s resistance to immigration status checks in schools has earned praise from advocates and Democrats but drawn ire from key Republican rivals. How he handles these challenges will likely have wide-reaching implications for Oklahoma’s future as it grapples with difficult questions about immigration and education.

For more official guidelines on the legal framework surrounding public education and immigration laws, visit the U.S. Department of Education’s page on Plyler vs. Doe. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the situation in Oklahoma underscores both the local and national reverberations of immigration-related decisions, especially when education and children are at the center of policy debates.

Learn Today

Plyler vs. Doe → A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling ensuring public education rights for children regardless of immigration status under the 14th Amendment.
Immigration enforcement protections → Rules preventing immigration authorities from operating in sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, or churches, removed during the Trump administration.
Operation Guardian → An Oklahoma initiative focused on deporting undocumented violent offenders from state jails to enhance public safety.
Equal Protection Clause → A part of the 14th Amendment ensuring no individual is denied equal protection under the law by the state.
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) → A nationwide assessment providing data on U.S. students’ academic achievement and educational progress over time.

This Article in a Nutshell

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt rejected a proposal requiring schools to collect students’ immigration status, citing legal precedents like Plyler vs. Doe. Differentiating education from public safety enforcement, Stitt’s decision highlights divisions among Republicans. While advocates praise him, critics say it undermines Trump-era priorities, intensifying political debates over immigration’s role in public education.
— By VisaVerge.com