Hundreds of residents urge Wicomico County Council to reject 287(g) agreement, citing fear, liability and racial‑profiling concerns

Hundreds of residents addressed the Wicomico County Council during a lengthy public‑comment period on Nov. 4, urging the body not to adopt a 287(g) memorandum of agreement (MOA) that would formalize local assistance to federal immigration enforcement.

Speakers from immigrant‑support organizations, faith groups and neighborhood associations expressed unanimous opposition by the end of the public‑comment segment. Concerns raised repeatedly included racial profiling, family separation, the possibility of inadequate medical and food care in federal holding facilities, county liability for transportation and detention costs, and the chilling effect on immigrant willingness to report crimes or cooperate with local law enforcement.

Mike Goldberg, an active critic of the MOA, told the council that contracting with ICE would not be budget neutral and cited recent lawsuits elsewhere, including a settlement referenced in public remarks that produced significant taxpayer exposure. Community leaders and organizers — including Monica Brooks of the Wicomico County NAACP and Leila Borrero Krause of CATA (a farmworker and immigrant support committee) — told council members their constituents fear racial profiling and harassment if the county partners with federal immigration enforcement.

Several speakers described personal stories or referenced national reporting to argue that conditions in some federal holding facilities have been inadequate. One commenter noted court filings indicating that a Baltimore area holding facility lacked on‑site medical staff and a food vendor; others described widely publicized cases of deaths in ICE custody and alleged mistreatment in detention settings.

“I urge you, please, not to agree with this 287(g) because … they are working, they’re earning a living for their families here and abroad,” Leila Borrero Krause said. Multiple speakers asked the council to vote formally rather than provide a nonbinding “consensus” and to register an official “no” if they oppose the MOA.

Council members heard a range of legal and fiscal questions: whether the county would be responsible for transportation costs and overtime, whether county correctional staff would face additional liability, and whether lawsuits could expose taxpayers to settlements. Speakers pointed to recent legal settlements in other jurisdictions as examples of fiscal risk.

The council did not take a final vote on a 287(g) agreement during the Nov. 4 legislative session. During post‑comment discussion, council members said they were collecting information from multiple sources, including the sheriff’s office, ICE representatives and legal advocates, and signaled they would weigh the input before any formal action. Several council members said they were skeptical of expanding local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement given the concerns raised, but no final legislative action was recorded in the session transcript.

What residents asked the council to do: many called on the council to vote “no” on any 287(g) MOA; others asked the council to require full fiscal and legal analyses and to postpone or decline any agreement until federal practices and oversight improve.

Speakers who addressed the MOA included community advocates, clergy, nonprofit staff and longtime residents; organizations and individuals cited in public remarks included the Wicomico County NAACP, the Haitian Development Center of Delmarva, CATA, and other local advocates.

The council’s next steps (as discussed): members said they would continue to gather information from legal counsel, the sheriff’s office, the county executive’s office and outside advocates before proceeding to any formal vote or endorsement of a 287(g) arrangement.