Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules panel advances local immigration enforcement ordinance after heated debate
Summary
A proposed Jacksonville ordinance to direct local cooperation with state and federal immigration enforcement passed the Rules Committee after hours of debate over civil‑liberties risks, enforcement limits and funding for fingerprinting technology.
Council members on the Rules Committee voted 5-3 on March 17 to move forward an ordinance that would require city departments to cooperate with state and federal immigration enforcement and provide funds for fingerprinting equipment for the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.
The sponsor framed the measure as a public‑safety initiative he said would give the Sheriff’s Office “more tools in the toolbox” to support enforcement of state and federal mandates. Committee discussion focused on the policy’s scope, potential civil‑liberties implications and the source of the roughly $76,000 the ordinance would allocate for portable fingerprinting devices.
Public speakers and committee members were sharply divided. Denise Scott, a resident who spoke during public comment, said the ordinance’s wording felt punitive. “If it was just about having 25 more fingerprint devices for JSO, then that’s what you should have said in this ordinance instead of saying that it was just for unauthorized aliens, for punishment,” she said.
Several speakers and committee members raised concerns about racial profiling and about whether the city could legally require the level of cooperation the ordinance describes. Those concerns prompted extended discussion and several proposed amendments that were debated in committee.
Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office representatives told the committee officers would use the devices only after a lawful stop and that internal oversight processes and reasonable‑suspicion standards would continue to govern stops. Jonathan Barry, chief of patrol for JSO, said the office is “governed by reasonable suspicion,” and that complaints about improper stops would trigger internal affairs investigations. “If it does occur, that would be an internal affairs investigation,” he said.
Committee members also questioned whether the state has already directed resources to similar efforts. The sponsor noted recent state appropriations for immigration enforcement and said much of that funding is targeting detention bed space rather than equipment.
After a lengthy floor debate and several amendments, the committee approved the ordinance 5-3. The full council will take up the ordinance next.
