Residents and council spar after mayor signals support for county 287(g) effort

At the Salisbury City Council meeting on Sept. 22, a mayoral statement that the city would be “supportive” of Wicomico County’s plans involving the federal 287(g) immigration partnership drew strong public reaction and extensive council discussion.

The mayor said the city’s intent was limited: to assist the county in identifying people with administrative or judicial warrants so “we would be in a position to help get them and have ICE deal with that situation.” Council members and the city attorney told the meeting they had not seen a final memorandum of understanding, and city legal staff advised that the city is likely ineligible for the county’s detention‑center 287(g) model because the municipality does not operate a detention facility and because the county is still developing its own plan.

Why it matters: public commenters said the mayor’s statement created fear among immigrant communities and risked undermining trust in local law enforcement; others said removing people with criminal warrants is a legitimate public‑safety goal. Council members pressed administration for clearer written policies and legal advice before the city takes any formal step.

Council and administration accounts

Mayor Randy Taylor said the release was intended to signal cooperation with the county “to the extent we can” on getting people with active warrants off the streets. “I was trying to follow that lead,” he said at the meeting. Several council members and the city attorney said there was no signed MOU, no implementation plan before council, and no internal procedure for routing immigration checks through city officers beyond existing booking procedures at arrest.

City legal staff explained there are several 287(g) models; the county’s proposed detention‑based model requires a jail facility and a formal agreement, which the city cannot enter for the detention model because it does not operate a detention center. Legal counsel said a different field‑operations model exists in other jurisdictions, but the city needs a written agreement and charter review before proceeding. Council members asked for those legal conclusions in writing and for more communication with the sheriff and county executive.

Public reaction and concerns

More than a dozen residents urged the council to reject any local participation. Speakers cited fear that cooperation with ICE would chill crime reporting and damage long‑standing community relationships with police. “Immigrant communities don’t report crime when ICE is involved,” said a resident active in local immigrant advocacy. Several speakers asked the mayor to apologize for issuing the release without prior council or legal consultation. Council members repeatedly urged the administration to stop public statements that lack accompanying documentation.

A smaller number of speakers and council members framed the issue as a public‑safety question: if the county obtains lawful warrants for people suspected of serious criminal conduct, some said they would support lawful cooperation aimed at removing people who pose a documented public‑safety risk. The mayor framed his own intent in those terms: “We wanna get dangerous criminals off the street,” he said.

Next steps

Council members directed staff to continue discussions with the county and to provide written legal analysis and any draft agreements for council review before any formal commitment. Several council members said the city should not adopt any 287(g) arrangement that would require altering the city charter or allocating additional city police resources without council approval.

Provenance: The meeting transcript shows the initial mayoral statement and subsequent exchanges beginning with the mayor’s release at the start of council discussion on immigration (transcript excerpt beginning 2025-09-22T01:18:07Z) and continuing through legal counsel’s eligibility analysis and council members’ responses (discussion segments ending 2025-09-22T02:34:56Z).