Jacksonville committee rejects proposal to bar city funds for unauthorized adults, seeks reports instead

A measure that would have required the mayor’s office to report on city spending that benefits unauthorized immigrants and barred certain city funds from being used for adults known to lack legal status failed in the Neighborhoods, Community Services, Public Health and Safety Committee on Monday.

Councilmember Rory Diamond introduced the ordinance seeking multiple reports — including on federal grants, employment practices, and city contracts — and language aimed at preventing Jacksonville taxpayer dollars from being used to provide services to adults “not in Jacksonville legally.” Diamond said the bill’s purpose was “to get a report from the mayor’s office as to how much money and in what way are we spending on illegal aliens in Jacksonville,” and to clarify how federal grants and city employment practices relate to those expenditures.

Supporters framed the measure as fiscal oversight. Councilmember Chris Miller said requesting regular reports on how taxpayer dollars are spent “is an acceptable thing to ask for,” and said the council is obligated to oversee the city’s purse strings. Opponents called the bill unnecessary and potentially harmful. Councilmember Jimmy Paluso said the measure was “cruel. This is sick,” and described it as “targeting human beings in our city.” Councilmember Ken Amaro called the language “hyperbole” and said it addressed “a problem that does not exist.”

The committee considered an amendment offered by Councilmember Amaro that narrowed the bill’s scope to focus on unauthorized adults and created exceptions for medical care and social services; the amendment would have limited reporting and the funding restriction to programs serving people 18 or older and carve out certain health and victim services. Administration representative Bridal Norris described the Amaro amendment as a narrowing that “mitigates some of the bureaucracy” and “updates, defines or removes builds an exception for medical care and social services.” The amendment failed on a 4-4 hand vote.

After additional debate, a motion to withdraw the bill was proposed and rejected. The committee then voted on the original measure; the chair called for a hand vote and recorded three members in favor and four opposed. The bill failed.

Committee members repeatedly raised questions about enforcement and identification: how nonprofits or health providers would determine eligibility, whether schools or hospitals check citizenship or residency, and how a restriction would interact with federal funding and the Fair Housing Act. Administration staff said many providers do not have mechanisms to check immigration status and that confirming parents’ or adults’ status in programs (for example, in public housing or school-based services) could be administratively difficult.

The discussion included exchanges about legal limits and local authority. Mary Stifopoulos of the Office of General Counsel cautioned that the law in this area is evolving and that she would review whether providing funds to entities that incidentally serve unauthorized people could be considered illegal under federal law. Council members asked for clearer data and enforcement plans; members opposed to the measure said the city should not add additional burdens on staff or on residents seeking services.

With the bill’s failure in committee, any future changes would require reintroduction or referral to other committees for additional amendment and vetting.