What a Proposed New Immigration Rule Could Mean for Manatee County

Manatee County relies on nonprofits to deliver essential services that strengthen communities, support families, and fill gaps that the government cannot address alone. At the Tuesday, April 7 Manatee County Commission meeting, Commissioner Ballard is proposing to add federal immigration-law language from 8 U.S.C. § 1621 to all county nonprofit contracts and create a formal process to verify compliance.

The proposal asserts that some nonprofits may have used county funds to serve undocumented individuals and argues that federal law prohibits this unless a state opts out—which Florida has not. It also calls for clawback procedures if nonprofits are found to be noncompliant.

The League of Women Voters opposes adding this language because there is no practical or lawful way for nonprofits to screen clients for immigration status, and communities that have attempted similar policies have experienced higher costs, reduced public safety, weakened public health, fewer nonprofit partners, and expensive lawsuits.

No Practical or Lawful Way to Screen for Qualifying Individuals

Nonprofits are not legally authorized to verify immigration status for most services. Federal systems like E-Verify and SAVE are restricted to specific government uses, and nonprofits cannot simply repurpose them to screen clients. Asking them to do so would put organizations at legal risk and force them into roles they are neither trained nor permitted to perform. In addition, SAVE is also notorious for problems such as flagging naturalized citizens as noncitizens, returning incomplete or outdated information and causing long delays.

In addition, these requirements would create significant administrative burdens, requiring community organizations with limited staff to navigate complex compliance procedures, collect sensitive information, and manage new layers of paperwork, rather than focusing on delivering services. Many would simply opt out of county funding altogether, shrinking the county’s service network.

Results if Implemented

Communities that tried 1621-style restrictions experienced higher costs, reduced safety, weaker public health, legal challenges, and fewer nonprofit partners. These outcomes are not hypothetical; they are documented, repeated, and predictable. Higher costs and lawsuits were not just for agencies, but also for the government entities.

Prince William County, VA, spent millions on implementation.
Farmers Branch, TX, spent over $6 million in legal fees.
Hazleton, PA, was ordered to pay $1.4 million in legal fees.

Will Manatee County benefit if it spends county staff time, attorney time, and money to implement this requirement? The results for these communities that implemented screening were fewer services, a drop in crime reporting, poorer health outcomes, and they almost always lost their court cases.

Let Our Commissioners Know

Counties thrive when they strengthen their nonprofit sector, not when they burden it with federal enforcement responsibilities it was never designed to carry. Policies modeled on § 1621 may sound tough, but in practice, they make communities weaker, less safe, and less connected. The smarter path is to support nonprofits in doing what they do best—serving people, building stability, and helping the entire community move forward.