City council passes heavily opposed bill that bans city funds for services to undocumented immigrants

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Community members packed Jacksonville City Hall Tuesday night to voice opposition to a proposed immigration policy that would require the disclosure of undocumented immigrants living in city-controlled public housing.

The controversial legislation, which would prohibit city funds for services to people living in the country illegally, passed with an 11-7 vote.

It drew extensive public comment, with most speakers opposing the measure.

RELATED: Jacksonville bill would prohibit use of city funds for services to undocumented immigrants

“This bill helps no one, and it would do harm to the Jacksonville community,” Tim Burbins said.

Several amendments were added to the bill during the lengthy session, including exemptions for victims of domestic violence and pregnant women. The council had to take a 20-minute recess to process the final amendments.

Councilman Rory Diamond defended the legislation, arguing it was necessary to maintain Jacksonville as “a city of laws” and prevent it from becoming a sanctuary city. “We need an actual report of city taxpayers,” Diamond said. “The mayor needs to start answering questions.”

However, Councilman Rahman Johnson strongly opposed the measure. “I believe we’re better than this,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t do anything to stop crimes, it doesn’t create jobs… it creates confusion, profiling, and other issues.”

MORE | ‘Mean-spirited’: Councilman says he won’t support bill that would ban city funds for services to undocumented immigrants

Resident Janine Martinez spoke against the bill, identifying herself as a mother, resident, and citizen. “This bill helps no one… It’s a waste of time,” she said.

Protesters gathered outside City Hall before and after the meeting, calling for the council to focus instead on affordable housing and infrastructure improvements.

Demonstrators also demanded the dropping of charges against pro-Palestine and immigrant rights activists and an end to what they described as the city’s use of repression to silence public dissent.

Multiple council members expressed that no amount of amendments could address the fundamental issues with the bill’s intent.