It's a scene out of a dystopian police state: Your bus pulls into the station after a long ride, but before you can get off, law enforcement agents board and make their way down the aisle, peering at passengers. They see brown skin, or hear a foreign accent, and stop to demand identification, then proof of citizenship. Those who don’t satisfy their questions are escorted off the bus.

All across the country, Customs and Border Protection agents are boarding buses — with Greyhound's consent — and subjecting riders to interrogation and detention based on nothing more than the color of their skin or the sound of their voice. This is not an entirely new tactic but under the Trump administration, it's on the rise. With deportation arrests soaring and the mandate that everyone is a target, CBP's enforcement actions have moved inland and are increasing in intensity.

Riders in Vermont, California, Washington, Arizona, and Michigan have all reported Border patrol boardings. Unfortunately for the passengers, Greyhound has been complicit, electing to give CBP access to their buses and enabling the agents to harass and violate the rights of the people on board.

Bus riders, however, have rights. The Constitution protects everyone in this country, regardless of immigration status, from racial profiling and arbitrary searches and detentions. Rather than acquiescing to CBP’s bully tactics, Greyhound can protect its customers from discrimination and suspicionless searches. Last week, ACLU affiliates in 10 states sent Greyhound a letter urging it to deny Border Patrol agents consent to board its buses and search its passengers without a warrant.

Tell Greyhound to protect passengers.

The Fourth Amendment protects both private businesses like Greyhound and individuals like its riders. To access the nonpublic areas of a business — like a Greyhound bus, where one needs a ticket to board — immigration officials must have a warrant or Greyhound’s consent. And to detain and question passengers, the Constitution makes it clear that CBP agents need to reasonably suspect a person is subject to deportation. Crucially, Border Patrol can’t base this suspicion solely on the color of a person’s skin or on the language she speaks.

In past public statements, Greyhound has justified its cooperation with CBP with reference to a federal statute stating that, within a reasonable distance of the border, CBP agents may board vehicles without a warrant. But Greyhound has it wrong: This statute doesn’t require Greyhound to grant CBP free rein over its property.

As the Supreme Court has made clear with reference to this very law, "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution." The Fourth Amendment protects Greyhound from unreasonable government searches. In other words, statute or no statute, agents still need a warrant or Greyhound's consent to board its buses. Nothing compels Greyhound to enable Border Patrol agents' violation of bus riders' constitutional rights.

Greyhound can and should assert its Fourth Amendment rights and decline CBP officers consent to board its buses. It should protect families like the 12-year-old arrested on a bus in Miami or the father and his DACA-recipient son questioned as they rode from Seattle to Montana. It should uphold the principle that, in this country, we are all free to ride the bus without fear of discrimination — or deportation.

Students deserve to attend supportive and well-resourced schools, where they feel safe. And, as students across the country are calling for common sense gun control, the Trump administration has instead proposed to “harden” schools by increasing the numbers of armed police in schools and by arming teachers and school staff. These proposals, while cloaked in the language of “school safety,” are most likely to hasten the process of transforming schools into something more akin to penal institutions while increasing the risk to students.

Trump's plan will likely have a "net-widening" effect of unnecessarily bringing more students into conflict with police and school staff, students who are there to pursue future options in life, not to cause large-scale harm to the school community. Armed staff in schools can sow distrust between students and school staff, criminalize students, and further heighten tensions on campus. Researchers have consistently found that such measures harm students’ trust in educators, undermine positive school climate, and make it difficult for educators to create a safe and supportive environment for students that is conducive to learning. Ultimately, a lack of trust will result in students being reluctant to report issues to school staff and will only cause our schools to be less safe.

Arming teachers will increase risk to students and school personnel. Under President Trump’s plan, 20 percent of teachers, or roughly 700,000 teachers, would keep a firearm in the classroom. The presence of hundreds of thousands of guns on campuses increases the likelihood that students or school personnel will gain access to firearms and accidentally hurt each other. Studies demonstrate that, unsurprisingly, people are far more likely to be shot, either by suicide, accident, or homicide, when more guns are available.

Recently, a teacher fired a gun while barricaded in a classroom, and last week alone there have been several accidental gun discharges at schools, including by a school resource officer at a middle school and by a teacher, the latter resulting in injury to a student. Many law enforcement agencies across the country have firmly opposed the proposal to arm school personnel, emphasizing that police and first responders will not be able to distinguish between the attacker and armed school staff when attempting to secure the premises.

As with many purported "school safety" policies, the impacts of this misguided proposal will be felt disproportionately by students of color, students with disabilities, and other groups who are already negatively impacted by punitive and discriminatory school policies. Black students are 3.4 times more likely than white students to be subject to a school-related arrest, and students with disabilities account for 25 percent of arrests at school but only 12 percent of the student population.

School personnel also disproportionately use physical punishments, restraints, and seclusion against students of color and students with disabilities. Black students are twice as likely to be hit by their teachers as punishment. Students with disabilities represent 12 percent of the student population but 67 percent of those subject to physical restraint or involuntary confinement in school. Against this backdrop, some parents fear that implicit bias may impact the ways in which armed teachers and police officers interact with students.

Law enforcement already has a significant presence in U.S. schools – roughly 24 percent of public elementary schools and 42 percent of public high schools have sworn police officers, but these officers have not effectively improved student safety. Research indicates that putting police in schools does not lead to lower rates of violence, and several recent mass shootings occurred in places where armed police officers were on duty. While police officers may at times play a role in responding to school violence — as a school officer did in Maryland last Tuesday — stationing permanent armed officers on campuses comes with significant negative consequences and is also not the most effective way to prevent school violence.

Instead of spending scarce resources on armed school personnel, we need to invest in preventing school violence. School districts across the country lack sufficient funding to invest in qualified and effective teachers, maintain facilities and resources, and provide the other resources necessary to educate our students. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 1.6 million children attend public schools that have police officers but no counselors, and three of the five largest school districts in the country hire more security officers than counselors. It is unacceptable to propose spending money on firearms and additional armed officers in schools while refusing to invest in resources that will promote student safety.

Youth across the U.S. are fighting to go to schools where they can learn and be safe. We should not respond to their call to action with policies that will further endanger, alienate, and criminalize them. We must reject calls for putting more guns in schools and instead do the more meaningful work of creating the safe and supportive spaces our youth deserve.