Oklahoma Education Superintendent Urges States to Embrace Trump’s Immigration Policies Amidst Division
Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters is spearheading a call for states to actively support President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, sparking a debate over state and federal roles in immigration enforcement. As Democrat-led states intensify their resistance to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, Walters, a Republican, argues that state governments, including education systems, have a responsibility to implement the President’s executive orders.
Walters expressed concern over the opposition from Democratic governors and officials, highlighting the need for states to proactively enact Trump’s policies. He questioned the lack of swift action from states aligned with Trump’s vision, emphasizing the importance of a unified front in addressing immigration issues.
To clarify the role of Oklahoma’s public education system in implementing Trump’s executive order aimed at ending taxpayer funding for programs that incentivize illegal immigration, Walters filed an inquiry with Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. The executive order, titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," directs federal agencies to ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits are not provided to unqualified aliens, with the goal of preventing taxpayer resources from attracting illegal immigration.
Drummond, however, responded by praising Trump’s order but asserting that it does not affect state agencies. He dismissed Walters’ request as "manufactured political drama" and criticized Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt for his handling of immigration issues in the state.
Stitt, in turn, responded to Drummond’s criticism by accusing him of campaigning for his next political promotion and affirming his commitment to protecting Oklahomans and children in their communities.
Walters expressed disappointment with Drummond’s response, stating that the Attorney General has a responsibility to provide opinions on all laws, not just those he deems worthy. He reiterated the need for a unified front in supporting Trump’s executive order to protect Oklahoma families.
In an interview, Walters emphasized that even though the executive order primarily addresses federal tax dollars, state education officials have a role in ensuring that federal funding received by the state complies with the order. He pointed out that various federal funding streams flow into state education systems and that the order aims to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing these funds.
Walters claimed that under the Biden administration, Oklahoma’s education system experienced a surge in illegal immigrant students, leading to "chaos" in schools. He estimated that Oklahoma spent a minimum of $474 million on these students, diverting resources and opportunities from U.S. citizen students.
Since Trump’s return to the White House, Walters has been a vocal advocate for policies that support the administration’s efforts to address the migrant crisis. He announced in late January that Oklahoma public schools would begin tracking students’ immigration status and sharing this information with federal authorities. However, this policy faces opposition from Stitt and is currently under consideration by the state legislature.
Walters asserted that Oklahoma is actively implementing Trump’s executive orders, including determining the number of illegal immigrants in the school system and assessing how the orders apply to funding streams to ensure compliance.
He believes that education systems nationwide should follow suit and swiftly implement Trump’s orders, emphasizing that states face a critical decision: align with Trump’s immigration agenda by accounting for illegal immigrants and enforcing his executive orders, or support the Biden administration’s approach of not acknowledging the issue. He argued that the recent election provided a clear mandate and that all states should align with Trump.
The clash between Walters, Drummond, and Stitt highlights the complex political landscape surrounding immigration policy and the challenges of implementing federal directives at the state level. The debate also underscores the differing views on the role of state governments in addressing immigration issues and the extent to which they should align with the policies of the federal government.
Walters’ stance reflects a broader movement among some Republican officials to actively support Trump’s immigration policies, while Drummond and Stitt’s responses indicate a more cautious approach, emphasizing the importance of state autonomy and focusing on local priorities.
The situation in Oklahoma underscores the ongoing national debate over immigration and the significant impact it has on state governments, education systems, and communities across the country. As states grapple with these complex issues, the debate over the appropriate balance between federal and state authority in immigration enforcement is likely to continue. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of immigration policy and its impact on American society.
The case of Oklahoma presents a microcosm of the national division on immigration, with differing interpretations of federal mandates and the appropriate role for state governments. While Walters calls for unwavering support of Trump’s agenda, others prioritize state autonomy and address local concerns. This internal conflict demonstrates the challenges of implementing a unified immigration policy across the country, highlighting the need for constructive dialogue and collaboration between federal and state authorities.
