Imposing a requirement that immigration status be obtained to provide government grants is not new, and we can learn from their experiences. The below examples are cases where a city tried to impose immigration‑status screening on local services or required nonprofits/contractors to do so. The outcomes were negative.
1. Farmers Branch, Texas (2006–2013)
What they tried: Ordinances requiring immigration checks for housing and local services. What happened:
- Seven years of litigation; ordinances ultimately struck down.
- City paid over $6 million in legal fees.
Sources: ACLU Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; Herald Review article, ACLU report on Supreme Court ruling
2. Hazleton, Pennsylvania (2006–2013)
What they tried: Local immigration‑status screening for housing and services. What happened:
- Policy ruled unconstitutional.
- City ordered to pay $1.4 million in legal fees.
Sources: Lozano v. City of Hazleton; ACLU case notes; ACLU report on Supreme Court ruling
3. Public‑health research across the U.S.
When immigration screening is introduced, studies consistently show:
- Lower vaccination rates
- Reduced prenatal care
- Declines in domestic‑violence reporting
- Drops in food‑assistance participation, even among eligible U.S. citizens
Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation; Urban Institute.
4. What we can expect if immigration screening is required of Manatee County nonprofits requesting grants:
- Small nonprofits withdraw from government partnerships.
- Administrative costs increase for both nonprofits and local governments.
- Service capacity shrinks, especially in high‑need communities.
