Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration 287g topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NAACP, community leaders press council on potential 287(g) arrangement; sheriff says no street-level ICE enforcement planned
Summary
Community leaders and NAACP representatives pressed the Wicomico County Council on Aug. 19 over reports that the sheriff’s office may pursue a memorandum of understanding with ICE under a 287(g)-style arrangement, citing fears such cooperation would erode trust and deter immigrant residents from engaging with authorities.
Community leaders from the Wicomico NAACP, the Caucus of African American Leaders and One Voice ministerial groups pressed the County Council on Aug. 19 to oppose local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a 287(g)-type agreement, voicing concerns about trust in law enforcement and potential effects on immigrants and their families.
Why it matters: Agreements under Section 287(g) of the federal immigration code authorize local jurisdictions to work with ICE on immigration enforcement. Community members said such cooperation undermines public trust and can deter residents from reporting crimes or seeking services.
What advocates said - Speakers including Mary Ashanti (NAACP) urged the council to publicly oppose any memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the sheriff’s office and ICE and to insist on a public hearing if the county is asked to authorize such an agreement. They argued 287(g)-style cooperation can chill community cooperation with police and disproportionately affect immigrant families.
What county and law-enforcement representatives said - County Attorney Paul Wilbur told the group that the proposed Human Rights Advisory Council and anti-bias training remain under legal and human-resources review; he said the Human Rights Advisory Council resolution should reach the council within a month.
- The sheriff’s office (via correspondence summarized in the meeting) said it has not entered into a formal 287(g) agreement, that it has held conversations with the county executive and county administration about possible options, and that any relationship with ICE would be limited to detention-center processing after individuals are taken into custody on unrelated criminal charges. The sheriff’s office emphasized it would not deploy deputies on street-level ICE enforcement or involve school resource officers in immigration enforcement.
Council response and next steps - Council staff said that, if the sheriff and executive submit a proposed MOU for the council’s consideration, the normal process would be to place it on the council agenda and, at the council’s discretion, hold a public hearing. Legal staff said they will advise the council about whether a public hearing is required. The council president and legal staff told community representatives they would notify the NAACP and other groups if an MOU or related item appears on an agenda.
Public concerns and context - Community speakers cited recent local reports and experiences that people believed ICE and local officers were operating together; speakers said even if an agreement limited enforcement to the jail, the public perception of cooperation erodes trust. Several called for the council to publicly state a position opposing 287(g)-style agreements and to increase transparency in any discussions with federal immigration authorities.
What the record shows - At the session, county legal staff and the sheriff’s office (in a written letter summarized for the meeting) said there is no active MOU in force and that no school-level enforcement by ICE is planned; the council agreed to notify the community if an item is brought forward for council action.
