The immigration legislation, passed 12–5 by the Jacksonville City Council on Marcy 25, would make it a local crime for undocumented immigrants to enter the city, mandating jail time and coordination with federal immigration authorities. Mayor Donna Deegan, who in a November interview with Times Radio in London described former President Donald Trump’s immigration proposals as amounting to “concentration camp-type situations,” now must decide whether to approve a local policy that mirrors the same enforcement priorities she criticized abroad. Her decision, due by April 8, carries legal, political, and symbolic weight—not only for Jacksonville, but potentially for cities across the country watching to see whether a local government can enforce immigration law more aggressively than the federal standard.

What’s in the Bill?

Ordinance 2025-147 makes it a Class B misdemeanor for immigrants over 18 without legal status to enter or re-enter Jacksonville. First-time offenders would face a mandatory 30-day jail sentence, with a 60-day sentence for repeat offenses. Local judges would be required to hold individuals in custody until trial, and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) would notify federal and state authorities upon each arrest.

The bill also allocates $76,000 for JSO to purchase 25 mobile fingerprint scanners, a move widely supported even by critics of the broader legislation. The scanners would allow officers to quickly identify immigration status in the field.

A Redundant or Radical Law?

Supporters of the bill, including Sheriff T.K. Waters and City Council Vice President Kevin Carrico, argue it reinforces the rule of law and enhances local-federal cooperation. Critics, however, call it legally redundant and constitutionally questionable, since immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.

Mayor Deegan has publicly questioned the necessity of the bill, citing overlapping state and federal laws already in place—such as a state statute signed by Governor Ron DeSantis that criminalizes unauthorized entry into Florida. More critically, she has expressed concern about the legal exposure this ordinance could bring to Jacksonville taxpayers, should the law be challenged in court.

"This is not hypothetical," Deegan noted, referencing an ongoing case in Texas where similar state immigration laws are being scrutinized by federal judges. “Judges have historically ruled immigration is the purview of the federal government.”

The Political Pressure Is Mounting

Governor DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier are watching closely. Uthmeier, who has taken an aggressive stance against cities perceived as obstructing immigration enforcement, warned that local officials could face legal and even criminal consequences for hindering federal efforts. He previously pressured Fort Myers into reversing its rejection of an ICE partnership. Some now wonder if a Deegan veto could invite similar retaliation.

DeSantis has already praised Jacksonville for “empowering law enforcement,” a not-so-subtle signal that he expects mayoral compliance. Council member Rory Diamond, who voted for the bill, has formally requested a legal opinion on whether a veto could violate state law—hinting at possible legal challenges to Deegan’s authority.

Deegan’s Options: A Political Crossroads

Mayor Deegan now stands at a critical juncture. Her options:

1. Sign the Bill: Doing so may help defuse political tensions with Tallahassee and potentially open the door for state cooperation on key city initiatives. But signing would alienate much of her progressive base, and may tie her administration to a law some view as unconstitutional.

2. Let the Bill Become Law Without Signature: A more passive route, this option would allow the legislation to take effect without an explicit endorsement, possibly reducing political blowback from both sides. However, it may be viewed as indecisive.

3. Veto the Bill: A bold stand that aligns with her stated concerns, but one that comes with substantial risk. The City Council appears to have the votes to override her veto, and a rejection could invite retaliation from the state government—possibly even suspension from office, according to warnings from the Attorney General.

As she put it herself: “I’m not the queen here. I don’t get to decide every issue.” But on this issue, her decision could define her legacy.

The Bigger Picture: Immigration, Identity, and Governance

Beyond the legal wrangling and political theater, this bill raises essential questions about the role of local government in national immigration policy. Should cities like Jacksonville take immigration enforcement into their own hands? Or is that a dangerous precedent that invites lawsuits and civil rights concerns?

For residents, the stakes are not abstract. Critics fear the law could lead to racial profiling and civil liberties violations. Supporters see it as a necessary step to protect public safety. And for Jacksonville as a whole, the decision could influence the city’s political reputation, future investments, and intergovernmental relationships.

Mayor Donna Deegan ran on a message of unity and progress. Now she must decide whether to resist this legislation in the name of civil liberties—or embrace it as part of a broader law-and-order framework.

Either way, April 8 may be remembered as the moment when Jacksonville’s local politics stepped onto the national stage.