Georgia Restricts Undocumented Students from Higher Education

By Kayela Belcina ’25

Abstract

The debate over higher education access for undocumented students continues to shape state policies, with significant differences across the United States. Georgia has emerged as one of the most restrictive states, enacting policies that exclude undocumented students from selective public institutions and deny access to in-state tuition. Georgia’s policies exacerbate educational inequities, disproportionately impacting Latino communities and reinforcing systemic barriers to economic and social mobility. 

This paper begins by analyzing the constitutional dimensions of Georgia’s bans, utilizing an Equal Protection framework and analyzing the Supreme Court Case, Plyler v. Doe, to argue that similar premises should be used to dismantle Georgia’s bans.

It then explores the racialized impacts of these policies, particularly on Latino populations, and considers their economic and social costs. Finally, the paper assesses the long-term effects on Georgia’s educational institutions and workforce development, proposing actionable reforms to promote inclusivity and equity within the state’s higher education system.

Significance Statement

This research reveals how Georgia’s restrictions on undocumented students reinforce racial and economic divides in education, denying marginalized groups access to opportunities. By analyzing historical, legal, and socio-economic impacts, this study highlights the need for policy reform to ensure equal educational access for all, regardless of immigration status.

Introduction

Georgia’s restrictive policies on higher education for undocumented students highlight a growing issue in the state and across the nation. Over the past two decades, Georgia’s undocumented population has more than tripled, growing from approximately 100,000 to over 300,000 residents. Despite this rapid demographic shift, the state paradoxically lacks tuition-equity laws, further exacerbating the exclusion of undocumented students from higher education. Currently, the state prohibits undocumented students from enrolling in several public colleges and universities, severely limiting their educational opportunities and perpetuating cycles of exclusion. This exclusion is particularly troubling given that access to higher education is often a stepping stone toward pathways for legalization in future immigration reforms, making Georgia’s policies not only restrictive but also a significant barrier to the integration and upward mobility of its undocumented youth. 

Incorporating undocumented students into higher education is not only a moral imperative but also a societal benefit, as 31% of all U.S. students are first or second-generation immigrants. For Georgia, removing these barriers is critical to ensuring that undocumented young people can contribute to the classroom and workforce while positioning themselves to take advantage of future immigration reform. As the state grapples with a growing undocumented population, ensuring access to higher education for these students becomes an essential step toward fostering both inclusivity and economic strength.

Methods of Research 

This research paper employs a qualitative, interdisciplinary approach, utilizing a combination of literature review, statistical analysis, legal analysis, and comparative policy analysis to examine Georgia’s restrictive policies on undocumented students. The literature review includes academic articles, legal case studies, and government reports to assess these policies’ historical and legal context. Statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau and educational organizations provided insights into demographic shifts and economic impacts, while legal analysis focused on constitutional protections, particularly the Equal Protection Clause and precedents like Plyler v. Doe. Comparative analysis of Georgia’s policies with those of more inclusive states highlights potential policy reforms. Additionally, case studies helped contextualize these restrictions’ social and educational implications.

Why Focus on Georgia? 

Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina are the three most restrictive states in higher education for undocumented students, being the only ones to enforce enrollment bans. According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal—a digital platform dedicated to supporting immigration reform and expanding access to higher education—these are the only three states to enforce “prohibitive enrollment” policies that bar undocumented students from enrolling in all or some of their public institutions. 

What distinguishes Georgia from Alabama and South Carolina is both its rapidly growing undocumented population and the severity of its higher education restrictions. As of 2019, Georgia has an estimated unauthorized immigration population of 339,000, significantly higher than South Carolina’s 88,000 and Alabama’s 62,000. 

Yet, unlike Alabama and South Carolina, which allow DACA recipients limited access to public colleges (with restricted in-state tuition and financial aid options), Georgia enforces the harshest policies. What sets Georgia apart is its treatment of DACA recipients. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established in 2012, offers temporary protection from deportation and work authorization to eligible undocumented individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children. Georgia uniquely bars all undocumented residents, including those with DACA status, from accessing in-state tuition or any state financial aid at public institutions. In contrast, Alabama permits DACA recipients to enroll in certain public colleges with access to in-state tuition. South Carolina allows DACA recipients to enroll in public institutions but denies them in-state tuition and state financial aid. Georgia’s exclusionary stance effectively shuts out a significant portion of its population from affordable higher education, establishing some of the most restrictive barriers in the nation.

History of Georgia’s Restrictive Bans 

Georgia’s restrictions on undocumented students began in May 2008 when the Georgia legislature passed Senate Bill 492, which mandated that undocumented Georgia residents pay out-of-state tuition to attend its public universities. At the time the bill was passed, Georgia’s undocumented population was the largest it had ever been, at about 425,000. Regardless of DACA status, all of Georgia’s undocumented residents were prohibited from accessing state financial aid. 

Then, on October 13, 2010, the Georgia Board of Regents passed Policies 4.1.6 and 4.3.4, which banned undocumented students from equal access to public higher education in Georgia.

Policy 4.1.6 (Admission of Persons Not Lawfully Present in the United States) explicitly states: “A person who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible for admission to any University System institution which, for the two most recent academic years, did not admit all academically qualified applicants (except for cases in which applicants were rejected for non-academic reasons).” This policy effectively bars undocumented students from enrolling in the state’s top colleges and universities, including Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Georgia, Georgia College and State University, the Medical College of Georgia, and Georgia State. The federal appeals court in Atlanta upheld this policy, confirming that the restriction applies to DACA recipients as well.

To further enforce this policy, Georgia’s Board of Regents passed Policy 4.3.4 (Verification of Lawful Presence) which required that “each University System institution shall verify the lawful presence in the United States of every successfully admitted person applying for resident tuition status, as defined in Section 7.3 of this Policy Manual, and of every person admitted to an institution referenced in Section 4.1.6 of this Policy Manual.” As part of this policy, the Georgia Board of Regents established the Residency Verification Committee to assess the impact of undocumented students on the state’s public colleges and universities. Under the guise of “[strengthening] the ability of University System of Georgia institutions to properly classify students for tuition purposes,” the committee implemented four new policies, the final one of which banned undocumented students from Georgia’s most competitive universities.

Together, these two state-level policies prevent students who migrated to the U.S. as children from attending college in the very state where they grew up. In addition, an ACLU investigation revealed that several schools not covered by the Board of Regents policies began publicly conditioning admission on proof of lawful presence starting with the fall 2011 semester. The Board of Regents, composed of nineteen unelected representatives appointed by the governor, has upheld the most discriminatory policies against undocumented students in the nation. Only one of these members has any qualifications in educational policy, yet they wield immense power over Georgia’s public higher education system. Some Georgia legislators even proposed House Bill 59, which sought to block undocumented immigrants from accessing any public higher education institutions in the state. Fortunately, the bill has not advanced to the floor for a vote. 

Despite being academically prepared and aspiring to attend college, many undocumented students in Georgia are systematically denied access to higher education. In March 2019, a federal appeals court reinforced this exclusion by upholding the validity of Policy 4.1.6, further solidifying the state’s exclusionary stance against undocumented students.

Broad Analysis of These Policies and Bans

As of 2024, Georgia continues to enforce policies that bar undocumented students from attending most public universities and deny them access to in-state tuition. These measures effectively render higher education unattainable for many undocumented students. By creating systemic barriers to learning opportunities, these policies exacerbate existing inequalities and perpetuate cycles of exclusion. With only an estimated 5-10% of undocumented students pursuing college or enrolling in four-year institutions, the economic and social implications of these restrictions are profound.

The urgency of addressing this issue has only intensified since Donald Trump’s recent election. His administration’s rhetoric and policies have historically emboldened restrictive immigration measures and heightened anti-immigrant sentiment across the country. In this climate, Georgia’s exclusionary policies signal a broader trend of dehumanizing undocumented individuals, entrenching harmful stereotypes, and denying basic rights. If left unchallenged, such measures risk spreading to other states, further narrowing opportunities for undocumented youth nationwide and undermining America’s commitment to equal access to education.

Critics contend that these policies represent a continuation of modern-day discrimination. Dr. Laura Emiko Soltis, Executive Director of Freedom University, draws a compelling comparison between Georgia’s bans on undocumented students and the segregation of Black students in the 1960s. The very universities that once denied admission to Black students now exclude undocumented students, underscoring a persistent legacy of institutionalized exclusion that contradicts the core principles of educational equity and opportunity.

This exclusion does not just cause individual injustice: it leads to societal consequences. By barring undocumented students from equitable access to higher education, these policies harm not only the students’ psychological and economic well-being, forcing many to pay out-of-state tuition, often triple the in-state rate, or abandon their aspirations altogether— but also the broader social fabric that benefits from an educated and empowered population. 

Georgia’s laws send a clear message: undocumented students are unwelcome. This deliberate marginalization not only limits their opportunities to higher education but also deprives Georgia and the nation of a generation of potential talent, innovation, and contributions.

This issue demands further awareness and attention. As states like Georgia grapple with immigration and education policies, it is crucial to expose the inequities embedded in these laws and advocate for inclusive reforms. The conversation must extend beyond the classroom to examine the broader societal costs of exclusion and the transformative potential of granting all students equitable access to higher education. These systemic barriers can be dismantled only through collective action and a commitment to justice and equity. 

Applying the Equal Protection Clause

Evaluating Georgia’s bans through an Equal Protection lens reveals the deep-rooted constitutional injustices these policies create and emphasizes the urgent need for reform. The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that no individual or group shall be denied the same legal protections as others in similar circumstances. It requires state and local governments to justify laws that create distinctions between comparable groups. 

Georgia’s Board of Regents unjustly distinguishes between equally qualified college applicants solely based on their immigration status. Many of these students are high achievers who have overcome significant social and cultural barriers to excel academically. Their demonstrated potential for success makes their exclusion from higher education institutions particularly unjust. Admission decisions should be based on demonstrable academic potential, not discriminatory policies that deny upward mobility to marginalized racial and ethnic groups. These restrictions rely on unfounded assumptions and circumstances beyond the student’s control, such as immigration status, rather than any legitimate academic or institutional needs.

While state and local governments have some discretion in determining whether two groups are similarly situated under a law, this discretion does not extend to policies rooted in intolerance or discrimination. Georgia’s bans, which perpetuate racial bias and social exclusion, fail to meet the constitutional standards of equal protection. By prioritizing exclusion over equity, these policies contradict the fundamental principles of fairness upheld by the Equal Protection Clause.

Courts evaluating laws under equal protection principles examine the government’s rationale and underlying intent. In Georgia’s case, the justification appears to be that it is more beneficial to allocate limited educational resources to students with authorized status rather than undocumented students. This rationale, however, is fundamentally flawed. Undocumented individuals constitute a small yet growing segment of Georgia’s population, and their potential contributions to society are substantial.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe mandates that states provide primary and secondary education to undocumented children. The average cost of a K-12 education in the United States is approximately $100,000 per student, funded largely by taxpayers. While Georgia is likely to see returns on its investment as authorized students enter the workforce, denying undocumented students the opportunity to attend college means failing to fully capitalize on the significant investment already made by Georgia taxpayers in their primary and secondary education.

Plyler v. Doe 

Building on the principles of the Equal Protection Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982) underscores the constitutional imperative to provide equal educational opportunities, laying a foundation that should extend to higher education. While Plyler secured access to K-12 education for undocumented children, its reasoning reveals why barriers to higher education for undocumented students are equally unjust and unconstitutional.

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that permitted school districts to charge tuition to undocumented students or exclude them entirely from public K-12 education. The Court found that such exclusions would impose a “lifetime of hardship” on affected children and emphasized that “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity to an education.” The justices also rejected claims that undocumented families disproportionately drain public resources, finding that undocumented families contribute equally to educational funding as do citizens or legal residents. These findings are significant because the Supreme Court, in this landmark case, recognizes that barriers to education create lasting social inequality. 

Plyler v. Doe stands as one of the first instances in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that undocumented immigrants are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It was important for the court to address that undocumented families do not burden public resources, as it shows that such barriers to education serve no useful purpose but to deny certain students the right to education based on their citizenship status. The Supreme Court overturned the law, affirming the right to K-12 education, as Texas could not prove a compelling state interest to justify excluding “a specific group of innocent children” from access to education.

The Court used an “intermediate” level of scrutiny, recognizing the essential role education plays in sustaining societal cohesion and acknowledging that barriers to education can create lasting challenges for a specific group of children who bear no responsibility for their disadvantaged circumstances. As a result, any state law limiting access to public education due to immigration status must demonstrate that it advances a significant state interest—a requirement the defendants were unable to satisfy.

Unfortunately, the protections established in Plyler do not extend to higher education. No court has yet determined whether the level of scrutiny applied in Plyler extends to similar barriers to higher education based on immigration status. While Plyler ensures access to primary and secondary education for undocumented students, a high school diploma alone is no longer adequate to remain competitive in today’s labor market. Like the children in Plyler, undocumented college-aged students often arrived in the United States as minors through no fault of their own. The reasoning and intermediate scrutiny applied in Plyler should logically extend to these students, as denying access to higher education perpetuates similar systemic disadvantages.

In today’s technology-driven society, where advanced degrees are often necessary for well-paying jobs, undocumented students who are unable to pursue higher education face challenges comparable to those of school-aged children in Plyler. The Court applied an “intermediate” standard of review because of the fundamental role of education in maintaining the fabric of our society, which I argue must extend to higher education. 

Georgia’s Reasoning to Enact These Bans

The Board of Regents claims they implemented their bans to make room in Georgia’s universities by opening up slots currently occupied by undocumented immigrants. Yet, at the time the ban was passed, only twenty-nine students across the five affected campuses were undocumented, and only 501 of the approximately 310,000 students attending Georgia’s colleges and universities were undocumented. Given that only twenty-nine students were undocumented across the five affected campuses, the number of slots the Board of Regents’ ban actually opened up was minimal and insignificant. On top of that, all the undocumented students were paying non-resident tuition, which exceeds the annual cost of university education. Therefore, the twenty-nine students placed no financial burden on Georgia taxpayers. Given these statistics, the bans appear to have been more of a symbolic gesture to satisfy anti-immigrant activists. 

Considering the essential role education plays in sustaining the foundation of our society, the Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that any state law that creates an obstacle to public education based on immigration status must be “justified by showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.” Based on the statistics and the Board of Regents’ admission, differentiating between citizen and undocumented students does little, if anything, to create additional opportunities for students with legal status. Even if the number of undocumented students at Georgia universities raised valid concerns about space, “concern for the preservation of resources alone cannot justify the classification used in allocating those resources.” As such, the ban does not have a rational connection to any legitimate government interest, failing to meet the requirements of a rational basis review.

Implications of these Bans on the State of Georgia 

Georgia’s restrictions on undocumented students’ access to higher education affect far more than the students themselves. These policies have implications for the state’s economic and social development. By barring these students from attending college, Georgia limits their ability to build on the skills they gained in the state’s public schools and contribute meaningfully to university settings. Georgia’s bans undermine the state’s potential for economic growth, which is heavily dependent on an educated workforce. 

In today’s global economy, higher education is increasingly valued over manual labor, and a college degree significantly boosts economic opportunities for individuals and communities. For example, a study in Michigan demonstrated that a 5% increase in college-educated adults could raise statewide economic growth by 2.5% over a decade and improve real wages by 5.5%. Georgia forfeits similar potential gains by denying undocumented students access to higher education. Furthermore, many of these students may eventually gain legal residency, at which point their contributions to Georgia’s economy could be even more substantial. The state’s educational bans, therefore, not only harm individuals but also weaken Georgia’s long-term economic prospects.

Beyond fostering economic growth, higher education also cultivates a healthier and more equitable society. Research consistently shows that individuals with college degrees experience better health outcomes than those with only a high school diploma. Additionally, communities with a larger proportion of college-educated residents see lower crime rates and reduced instances of repeat offenses. A report by the National Research Council further highlights that college-educated immigrants save government resources while also contributing significantly to state revenues through tuition payments and later through higher tax contributions as they enter well-paying careers. Ultimately, expanding access to higher education for undocumented immigrants strengthens states’ economies and enhances communities by fostering a more educated, healthier, and safer population.

By denying undocumented students the opportunity to attend public colleges and universities, Georgia restricts not only their potential but also the broader social and economic benefits their education could provide to the state and nation. Educating undocumented students is as vital and beneficial as educating those with legal status. In an era where higher education is critical for upward mobility, Georgia’s policies exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities and limit the cultivation of a dynamic, well-educated workforce capable of driving innovation and economic progress. 

The reasoning in Plyler v. Doe, which affirmed the right to K-12 education for undocumented children, logically extends to higher education. The Court acknowledged the vital role education plays in an individual’s success and in maintaining societal cohesion. Denying undocumented students access to higher education perpetuates systemic inequality and creates a class of residents unable to achieve middle-class stability. The ban imposed by Georgia’s Board of Regents undermines the state’s economic and social objectives, stifling access to knowledge and innovation. This policy, with its tenuous connection to the state’s stated goals, fails to justify its discriminatory impact and stands in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, warranting its reversal.

How These Bans Impact Georgia’s Colleges and Universities

To further understand how Georgia’s bans impact the state’s economy, assessing how these policies affect Georgia’s colleges and universities is critical. If expanded through proposed legislation like HB 59, which would apply the ban across the entire University System of Georgia (USG), these policies could have even more far-reaching consequences. By limiting access to higher education, the ban risks increasing operational costs for affected institutions, tarnishing the national and international reputation of Georgia’s universities, and diminishing the diversity that is crucial to fostering a robust academic environment.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court highlighted the critical role of diversity in higher education, emphasizing how diverse classrooms prepare graduates to navigate an increasingly global and multicultural workforce. By excluding undocumented students, Georgia’s universities miss the opportunity to engage with a significant and growing demographic: immigrant communities that are vital to the state’s economic and social fabric. The lack of diversity in higher education not only limits students’ learning opportunities but also weakens the future leadership of Georgia. As the state’s population becomes more diverse, the demand for leaders who can navigate and represent these communities continues to grow. 

Under Section 4.3.4 of the Board of Regents’ Policy Manual, schools are mandated to use verification systems like the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to verify the legal presence of all admitted students, which comes with costs. Using SAVE is not free, as each check costs at least fifty cents. At Georgia State University, which admitted 13,000 students in the fall of 2010, this equates to an additional $7,500 in expenses. When applied across all Georgia universities under the University System of Georgia, these costs become a substantial financial burden that could otherwise be directed toward enhancing the educational experience for all students.

Future leaders in business and government benefit from interacting with peers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, gaining valuable insights that enhance their ability to connect with diverse communities. Given Georgia’s growing immigrant population, barring undocumented students from higher education limits opportunities for future professionals to engage with and understand a significant portion of their communities. Far from being a drain on resources, undocumented students contribute valuable perspectives that enrich the academic environment.

In today’s interconnected world, higher education institutions benefit from fostering inclusive spaces where students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds can interact, learn, and grow. These interactions provide all students with insights that enhance their ability to work in diverse professional settings, whether in business, government, or other fields. Given Georgia’s growing immigrant population, barring undocumented students from higher education limits opportunities for students to engage with and understand a key segment of their future constituencies. In doing so, the state sacrifices the potential for a more dynamic, informed, and compassionate workforce, one that is equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly changing society. 

Ultimately, the exclusion of undocumented students not only harms them but also undermines the broader educational mission of Georgia’s universities. By cutting off access to this vibrant pool of students, Georgia’s colleges and universities are hindered in their ability to produce well-rounded graduates and serve the needs of an increasingly diverse state. This, in turn, reduces Georgia’s ability to develop future leaders who can navigate and shape a more inclusive society. These bans, therefore, not only disrupt the educational mission of the affected institutions but also limit the state’s potential to thrive in an interconnected, diverse world.

Georgia’s Growing Undocumented Population 

Georgia has experienced significant growth in its undocumented population, reflecting the state’s evolving demographic landscape. In 2016, undocumented immigrants made up 36% of Georgia’s immigrant population and 4% of its total population, with their numbers reaching around 300,000. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 500,000 individuals in the state, including 236,662 U.S. citizens, lived in households with at least one undocumented family member. These statistics reveal that undocumented immigrants are a significant and growing part of Georgia’s population. Policies that provide them with access to educational opportunities for the benefit of the entire state are crucial for Georgia’s population to flourish. 

It is also important to mention the state’s notable population of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. According to the American Immigrant Council, as of 2020, nearly 21,000 individuals were active recipients, with 48% of those eligible applying by 2019. These individuals, many of whom were brought to the U.S. as children, have become an essential part of the state’s workforce and education system. By providing protection from deportation, DACA allowed these individuals to pursue higher education, work legally, and contribute more fully to society. Despite the challenges they face, including the uncertainty surrounding their legal status, DACA recipients remain deeply invested in the communities they call home.

Undocumented immigrants play a crucial role in Georgia’s workforce, representing 5% of workers in 2016, and they contribute significantly to the economy, paying $563.7 million in federal taxes and $355.2 million in state and local taxes in 2018. These taxes support vital public services and infrastructure, benefiting all residents, regardless of immigration status. The economic impact of Georgia’s undocumented population is particularly evident in industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, and food services, where they form the backbone of the labor force. These workers often fill jobs that are difficult to staff with native-born workers, driving the state’s productivity and economic growth.

Beyond their economic contributions, undocumented individuals help enrich the cultural and social fabric of Georgia. Their presence fosters diversity, promoting broader perspectives in everyday life and helping to shape a more inclusive society. However, the state’s policies, including bans on undocumented students’ access to higher education, fail to recognize the potential of these individuals. As the state’s undocumented population continues to grow and play an increasingly vital role in its economy, limiting their educational opportunities only serves to diminish Georgia’s future prospects. The exclusion of these students from public universities not only deprives them of opportunities to succeed but also robs the state of a dynamic, engaged, and highly motivated segment of its population, further undermining Georgia’s capacity to thrive in an interconnected, diverse world.

Georgia’s Bans Disproportionately Target Latinos 

According to 2019 data from the Migration Policy Institute, out of Georgia’s estimated 339,000 unauthorized population, the majority are from Latin America. Mexico accounts for 48% of this population, followed by Guatemala (11%), El Salvador (5%), and Honduras (5%). These four countries collectively make up 69% of the population, and when including other regions in Latin America, 78% of undocumented immigrants in Georgia trace their origins to this area. The remaining populations are from South Asia (India, 7%), the Caribbean (2%), and other regions (21%).

A significant portion of this population has deep roots in the U.S., with 26% having lived in the country for 15-19 years and 21% for 10-14 years. Among the undocumented, 15% are aged 16-24, an age group typically associated with higher education. However, access to education is severely limited. While 86% of youth ages 3-17 are enrolled in school, only 35% of those aged 18-24 pursue higher education. This sharp decline highlights the barriers undocumented students face when transitioning to college, including legal restrictions, lack of financial aid, and fear of exposure to immigration enforcement. Among adults, educational attainment is also low: only 24% hold a high school diploma or equivalent, 9% have completed some college or earned an associate’s degree, and 18% have a bachelor’s or higher degree. These figures reflect systemic barriers that undermine opportunities for personal and economic advancement, perpetuating cycles of poverty.

Language barriers further isolate this population. Among those aged 5 and older, 24% report speaking English “very well,” while 45% report speaking English “not well” or “not at all.” Spanish dominates as the primary language spoken at home for 72% of undocumented individuals, while only 8% speak English. This lack of English proficiency, coupled with policies that restrict access to education and social services, exacerbates the marginalization of Latino immigrants, limiting their ability to advocate for their rights, access resources, and integrate into their communities.

Economically, the population faces significant hardships intrinsically tied to Georgia’s restrictive policies. A breakdown of family income shows that 59% live below 200% of the poverty level, with 11% earning less than 50% of the poverty threshold and 15% between 50-99% of the poverty line. These statistics are not merely reflective of individual circumstances; they highlight the structural inequities undocumented Latinos face. Policies barring access to public benefits, state financial aid, and affordable healthcare trap many in economic precarity. For example, the fact that only 41% earn at or above 200% of the poverty level demonstrates how legal and systemic barriers limit access to higher-paying jobs, which often require documentation or advanced education, opportunities systematically denied to this group.

Finally, the lack of access to basic needs such as healthcare and housing underscores the profound vulnerability of this population. Approximately 70% of undocumented individuals are uninsured, a direct result of policies that exclude them from public healthcare programs like Medicaid or the ACA (Affordable Care Act) marketplace. Without health insurance, these individuals face higher risks of untreated medical conditions, perpetuating poor health outcomes and economic instability. Similarly, only 31% are homeowners, reflecting the compounded challenges of economic insecurity, exclusion from traditional financial services, and discriminatory housing policies. These systemic obstacles deepen socioeconomic inequities and create a cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement for undocumented Latinos.

Georgia’s bans disproportionately target Latinos by imposing barriers that intersect across education, language, healthcare, and economic opportunities. These policies do not just marginalize a vulnerable population — they create systemic inequities that perpetuate poverty, limit upward mobility, and undermine human dignity. The implications extend beyond the undocumented community, as these inequities reinforce broader patterns of racial and economic injustice within the state. This systemic targeting demands urgent attention to address the disparities and promote more inclusive policies.

Policy Recommendations 

Addressing Georgia’s restrictive policies on higher education for undocumented students requires a comprehensive strategy combining legislative reform, legal advocacy, and grassroots action. Repealing Georgia Board of Regents Policies 4.1.6 and 4.3.4 must become a priority for advocates, as these policies explicitly bar undocumented students from attending several public universities and deny them in-state tuition, perpetuating systemic barriers to education. Legislative efforts should focus on emphasizing the economic and societal benefits of tuition equity, drawing on evidence that undocumented students contribute positively to educational environments and local economies. Introducing tuition-equity legislation, such as those implemented in California and Texas, would provide undocumented students, including DACA recipients, with access to in-state tuition and state financial aid, fostering pathways for academic and economic advancement.

Given that Georgia’s bans disproportionately target Latinos, who make up the majority of the state’s undocumented population, engaging with non-profit civil rights organizations like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is crucial. MALDEF’s expertise in advocating for Latino civil rights positions the organization as a key ally in challenging the legality of these discriminatory policies. Utilizing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, legal efforts could argue that Georgia’s bans perpetuate the same systemic inequities identified in Plyler v. Doe, where the U.S. Supreme Court established that undocumented students deserve equal access to education. Such arguments could form the basis of a legal challenge to dismantle Georgia’s exclusionary policies.

Situating Georgia’s restrictions within the broader context of international human rights law is another approach that strengthens the moral argument for reform. The right to education is recognized as a fundamental human right under international frameworks, and Georgia’s policies violate these principles. Highlighting these violations through global advocacy efforts underscores the ethical urgency of providing equitable access to higher education for all.

Public-private partnerships could also serve as an interim solution, mitigating the immediate impacts of Georgia’s restrictions. Scholarships, mentorship programs, and other resources provided by private institutions and non-profits would empower undocumented students to pursue higher education despite current barriers. Concurrently, Georgia’s public universities should proactively prepare for a future in which undocumented students gain access by creating diversity and inclusion programs. These initiatives would cultivate a welcoming environment, ensure faculty and staff are trained to support undocumented students, and establish systems that celebrate and integrate diverse perspectives into academic settings.

By leveraging legal, legislative, and grassroots strategies while addressing the intersectional impact of these bans, Georgia can begin dismantling systemic barriers to education. Fostering inclusivity not only aligns with constitutional principles but also positions the state for long-term economic and social advancement. 

Grassroots Advocacy 

Grassroots advocacy has been another powerful tool in the fight against Georgia’s higher education bans on undocumented students. Students, faculty, and community allies have repeatedly mobilized to challenge the exclusionary policies, drawing attention to the injustices they perpetuate. One prominent example is Freedom University, an Atlanta-based institution providing tuition-free college-level courses to undocumented students barred from Georgia’s public universities. Founded by former University of Georgia (UGA) professors, Freedom University not only educates students but also serves as a hub for activism. Many of its students have gone on to attend private colleges out-of-state, a testament to the determination of these individuals to pursue education despite systemic barriers.

Freedom University students, alongside peers from UGA, Georgia State University, and Emory University, have organized numerous protests to demand the repeal of the State Board of Regents Policy 4.1.6. During one protest, nearly 100 demonstrators marched to the steps of UGA’s administration building to demand that UGA President Jere Morehead publicly denounce the ban. Protestors, including undocumented students and faculty allies, linked arms, some with tape over their mouths to symbolize the silencing of undocumented voices. While Morehead declined to meet with the protestors or condemn the ban, the action drew significant attention to the moral and social consequences of the policy.

Another protest combined symbolic silence with bold visual displays. In 2019, graduates from the University of Georgia’s School of Social Work used their commencement ceremony as a platform for advocacy. A group of students stood together, displaying the phrase “Lift the Ban” on their graduation caps to protest the University System of Georgia’s policies against undocumented and DACA students. The protest, called “Lift the Ban,” was sparked by a course on global social work and social development, where students learned about the policy’s adverse effects on Georgia residents. Ahead of graduation, banners and other materials were used to raise awareness, including a sign reading “Did you know that you attend a segregated university?” referencing the exclusionary policy. The protest culminated during the ceremony, symbolizing solidarity with undocumented students who were denied the opportunity to walk the same stage.

Freedom University and its supporters have also staged protests at The Arch, an iconic symbol of UGA. These demonstrations, often featuring chants like “Shame on Georgia” and songs from the civil rights movement, have connected the fight for undocumented students’ rights to broader historical struggles for racial justice. Speakers at these rallies highlighted the irony of UGA’s celebration of 50 years of desegregation while enforcing policies that perpetuate educational inequities. Such actions underscore the role of grassroots advocacy in holding institutions accountable for discriminatory practices.

The persistence of these protests has drawn national attention to Georgia’s policies, fostering solidarity among students, faculty, and community members. These actions illustrate how grassroots movements can put sustained pressure on policymakers and highlight the moral failings of exclusionary policies. By continuing to organize, build coalitions, and amplify the voices of those directly affected, grassroots advocates play a critical role in the fight for educational equity. Their efforts serve as a reminder that collective action remains a powerful avenue for challenging systemic injustice and advocating for the repeal of harmful bans on undocumented students.

Discussion 

Georgia’s higher education bans on undocumented students embody a form of modern-day segregation. These policies, rooted in historical patterns of institutionalized discrimination, deny access to critical opportunities for upward mobility and economic advancement. The exclusion of undocumented students, many of whom have spent their formative years in the United States, reflects a failure to recognize their potential contributions to Georgia’s educational institutions, workforce, and society at large. By restricting access to higher education, Georgia undermines its own social and economic progress while perpetuating inequities that harm individuals and communities.

The central argument of this paper is that Georgia’s higher education restrictions are not only morally unjust but also constitutionally questionable under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies fail to serve any substantial state interest, disproportionately impact Latino communities, and deny the state the opportunity to fully benefit from the talents and contributions of undocumented students. The research highlights how these bans are not an isolated issue but part of a broader legacy of exclusion that continues to echo Georgia’s segregationist past.

Further research should examine the long-term economic and social impacts of excluding undocumented students from higher education, both on the individuals affected and on Georgia’s overall growth. Comparative analyses with states that have implemented tuition-equity laws could strengthen the case for policy reform. Additionally, exploring these restrictions through the lens of international human rights frameworks would underscore the global consensus on education as a fundamental human right.

The importance of repealing these bans cannot be overstated. They not only deprive individuals of opportunities but also weaken the foundation of a just and equitable society. Education is a cornerstone of democracy and a pathway to innovation, resilience, and collective prosperity. Repealing these policies would align Georgia with constitutional principles, national values, and global human rights standards, fostering a more inclusive and equitable future.

This issue demands urgent action. Grassroots advocacy, such as the efforts of Freedom University, has proven effective in highlighting the injustices of these policies and galvanizing public support. Sustained pressure from students, educators, legal advocates, and policymakers is essential to dismantling these discriminatory barriers. The fight for educational equity is not just about the present generation but about setting a precedent for fairness and inclusivity in the future.

As history shows, progress is achieved through persistence and collective action. The civil rights movement once dismantled overt forms of segregation in Georgia; today, it is our responsibility to confront this modern-day iteration. Repealing these bans is not just a step toward justice for undocumented students but a reaffirmation of our commitment to the principles of equity, opportunity, and human dignity. Only by breaking down these barriers can Georgia fully realize its potential as a state that values education and the contributions of all its residents.

References

1. Pew Research Ctr., Unauthorized Immigrant Population Trends for States, Birth Countries and Regions, Hispanic Trends available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-trends/ (last visited Dec. 19, 2017).
2. Zenen Jaimes Pérez , “Removing Barriers to Higher Education for Undocumented Students,” Center for American Progress, December 2014, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/UndocHigherEd-report2.pdf, 42.
3. “Higher Education –the Immigration Initiative at Harvard,” Immigrant Initiative at Harvard (Harvard University Press, May 1, 2023), https://immigrationinitiative.harvard.edu/topic/higher-education/.
4. “U.S. State Policies on DACA & Undocumented Students | Higher Ed Immigration Portal.” 2023. Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. 2023. https://www.higheredimmigrationportal.org/states/.
5. “Unauthorized Immigrant Population Profiles.” 2018. Migrationpolicy.org. December 5, 2018. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/us-immigration-policy-program-data-hub/unauthorized-immigrant-population-profiles.
6. Atfeh, Mouhannad, Julia Duperrault, and Shari Wejsa. 2021. “A Dream Deferred: The Devastating Consequences of Restricting Undocumented Student Access to Higher Education in Georgia.” https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-Dream-Deferred.pdf.
7. Antonio Lewis, “Today Marks 10 Years of Modern Segregation in Georgia,” Freedom University, September 11, 2021, https://www.freedom-university.org/news/today-marks-10-years-of-modern-segregation-in-georgia#:~:text=On%20October%2013%2C%202010%2C%20the,public%20higher%20education%20in%20Georgia.
8. “University System of Georgia,” Board of Regents Policy Manual | 4.1 General Policy on Student Affairs | University System of Georgia, accessed July 22, 2024, https://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/C327/#p4.1.6_admission_of_persons_not_lawfully_present_in_the_united_states.
9. Karla Umana, “THE ULTIMATE GUIDE FOR COLLEGE BOUND UNDOCUMENTED GEORGIA STUDENTS ,” Johnson High School Student Services , accessed July 22, 2024, http://johnsonstudentservices.weebly.com/uploads/9/2/9/5/92956256/georgia_college_guide_for_undocumented_students.pdf, 11.
10. Bill Rankin and Eric Stirgus, “Georgia College System’s Ban against Immigrant Admissions Upheld,” AJC News, March 6, 2019, https://www.ajc.com/news/local/atlanta-court-upholds-university-system-ban-unauthorized-immigrants/IxwkDzIV8VAwjRHY76fPiK/.
11. “University System of Georgia,” Board of Regents Policy Manual | 4.3 Student Residency | University System of Georgia, accessed July 22, 2024, https://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/C329/#p4.3.4_verification_of_lawful_presence.
12. Azadeh Shahshahani and Chaka Washington, “Shattered Dreams: An Analysis of the Georgia Board of Regents’ Admissions Ban from a Constitutional and International Human Rights Perspective,” Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal 10, no. 1 (2013): 1–30, https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-2156-2014039, 4.
13. Lawful Presence Verification; Postsecondary Education; Reserve Benefits: Hearing on H.B. 59 Before the Georgia General Assembly House Committee on Higher Education, 2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2011) (statement of Representative Ralph Long III, Ga. House of Representatives, Member of the Higher Ed. Comm.). For more on the hearing, see Laura Diamond, Bill to Bar Illegal Immigrants in Public Colleges Clears Panel, ATLANTA JOURNALCONSTITUTION (Feb. 15, 2011), http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/ bill-to-bar-illegal-immigrants-in-public-colleges-/nQqhf/.
14. Senator Logan Krusac, Resolution 24-06 To Express Condemnation of Georgia House Bill 59, A Bill to Ban Undocumented Students From Applying to Institutions of Higher Education in Georgia, and for Other Purposes, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION, available at http://sga.uga.edu/about/bills/Resolution+24- 06.pdf.
15. Dan Lips, Education Notebook: The Cost of American Education, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION (Sept. 15, 2006), http://www.heritage.org/research/educationnotebook/ education-notebook-the-cost-of-american-education.
16. Nguyen, David H. K., and Gabriel R. Serna. “Access or Barrier? Tuition and Fee Legislation for Undocumented Students across the States.” The Clearing House 87, no. 3 (2014): 124–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43999386.
17. Tami Luhby, Where You’re 18 Times More Likely to Find a Job, CNNMONEY (Aug. 29, 2012), http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/29/news/economy/jobs-education/index. html.
18. Laura Diamond, Students urge regents to rescind ban on illegal immigrants, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION (Nov. 8, 2011), http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/students-urge-regents-to-rescind-ban-on-illegal-im/nQNTR/.
19. Laura Diamond, Regents ban illegal immigrants from some Ga. colleges, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION (Oct. 13, 2010), http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/regents-ban-illegal-inmigrants-from-some-ga-colleg/nQk4z/.
20. Azadeh Shahshahani, College Educator or Immigration Police?, HUFFINGTON POST (May 26, 2010), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azadeh-shahshahani/college-educator -or-immigb_591373.html.
21. FINAL REPORT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH (Dec. 2004), available at http://www. cherrycommission.org/docs/finalReport/CherryReportFull.pdf.
22. Jim Saxton, Investment in Education: Private and Public Returns (2000), available at http://www.fsb.muohio.edu/evenwe/courses/eco361/f04/readings/investment% 20in %20education.pdf.
23. Stephen J. Steurer & Linda G. Smith, Education Reduces Crime: Three-State Recidivism Study Executive Summary (2003), http://www.ceanational.org/pdfs/ edreducescrime.pdf.
24. Gary Miller, Higher Education Benefits Students, Society, THE WICHITA EAGLE (Jan. 28, 2010), http://www.kansas.com/2010/01/28/1156302/higher-education-benefitsstudents.html.
25. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003).
26. The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program: A Fact Sheet, IMMIGRATION POLICY CTR. (Dec. 15, 2011), http://imnigrationpolicy. org/sites/default/files/dos/SAVEFact Sheet_121411.pdf; but see System of Records Notice for the USCIS Verification Information System (VIS) (DHS- 2008-0089), 73 Fed. Reg. 75445 (proposed Dec. 11, 2008) (stating that SAVE may be used “for any purpose authorized by law”).
27. SAVE Access Methods and Transactional Charges, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERV. (Apr. 19, 2011), http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6dla/?vgnextoid=cd32c2ecOc7c811OVgnVCM1 000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=cd32c2ecOc7c8110VgnVCM1000004 71819OaRCRD.
28. Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010, PEW HISPANIC CTR. (Feb. 1, 2011), http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf.
29. Jeremy Redmon, New Report: Georgia 7th Among States for Illegal Immigrants, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION (Feb. 2, 2011), http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local-govtpolitics/new-report-georgia-7th-among-states-for-illegal-im/nQqDP/.
30. “Immigrants in Georgia.” 2020. American Immigration Council . https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/immigrants_in_georgia.pdf.
31. “Profile of the Unauthorized Population – Georgia.” 2019. Migrationpolicy.org. 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/GA.
32. Muñoz, Susana M., and Michelle M. Espino. 2017. “The Freedom to Learn: Experiences of Students without Legal Status Attending Freedom University.” The Review of Higher Education 40 (4): 533–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0021.
33. mkgrant2014. 2014. “Students Protest Ban on Undocumented Immigrant Students at UGA.” USA TODAY. college.usatoday.com. May 2, 2014. https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2014/05/02/students-protest-ban-on-undocumented-immigrant-students-at-uga/37390921/.
34. Miranda, Gabriela. 2019. “Silent Protest at Graduation Supports DACA Recipients and Undocumented Students in Georgia.” The Red & Black . May 10, 2019. https://www.redandblack.com/uganews/silent-protest-at-graduation-supports-daca-recipients-and-undocumented-students-in-georgia/article_25e105be-7395-11e9-b356-af61b743a86e.html.