Central to the American tradition of expanding protections for controversial speech is a robust distrust of potential censors to make reasonable judgments about what speech should be suppressed. But the arguments for a more restrictive approach to speech often implicitly or explicitly evince much greater trust in the likely decision-makers who will be entrusted with the authority to suppress speech. Whether restricting Communist speech, antiwar speech, “hate speech,” or “disinformation,” the case for empowering some authority figure—such as campus administrators, technology company employees, or government officials—builds on an assumption that those authority figures will be motivated by good intentions and be endowed with good judgment to make reasonable distinctions between the speech that should be tolerated and the speech that should not. Such confidence would often seem to be misplaced.

Primary and secondary education is essential because it not only provides students with critical literacy and numeracy skills, but also, for many students, it begins their civic education. The goals of civic education vary by country, but a consistent goal is to provide students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be productive members of society. Globally, approximately thirty-six million children are living outside of their country of nationality. With the growing number of migrant children, states are facing two challenges to effective civic education. The first is access to schools, and the second is creating a civic education curriculum that effectively prepares all students to participate in society in ways that align with democratic principles and goals. This essay focuses on unauthorized migrant children’s access to public schools and argues for civic education to incorporate the exploration of membership boundaries so that students, citizen and noncitizen alike, can study unauthorized migrants’ participation in society within the context of membership status. This exploration offers students the opportunity to consider how to better align unauthorized migrants’ lived realities with their legal status–and to better realize democracy’s promise.