Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated hearing as Maryland panel considers ban on 287(g) immigration agreements
Summary
HB 444, which would prohibit certain local participation in federal 287(g) immigration-enforcement agreements, drew wide public testimony Jan. 27: advocates argued the agreements cause racial profiling and community fear, while sheriffs and county executives said jail-based cooperation removes dangerous offenders and protects public safety.
Delegate Nicole Williams urged the House Judiciary Committee to issue a favorable report on HB 444, legislation to prohibit certain voluntary local agreements with ICE commonly referred to in testimony as "287(g)" agreements.
Supporters — including the comptroller, civil-rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, public defenders and a broad roster of community witnesses — argued the agreements undermine trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, chill reporting of crimes, and expose municipalities to civil-liability risk. Comptroller Brooke Lierman cited economic arguments, saying immigrants comprise about 17% of Maryland’s population and contribute substantially to the workforce; she urged protecting community trust to prevent economic withdrawal.
ACLU and public-defender witnesses detailed lawsuits and settlements they said show municipal liability for collaborating with ICE; the ACLU cited Medrano v. Jenkins and a $25,000 award and the public defender’s office referenced large settlements elsewhere (testimony cited six- and eight-figure settlement amounts in other jurisdictions).
Opponents — county executives, sheriffs and corrections officials from participating counties — urged an unfavorable report, arguing the jail-model 287(g) program they operate is limited to detainees booked into jails, has removed people with serious criminal histories from the community and is an important public-safety tool. Frederick County’s sheriff described long-standing local screening practices and gave counts of arrestees, detainers and prosecutorial releases from his county’s jail-based program.
Why it mattered: Proponents emphasized fear and harm to immigrant families, oral testimony from community members (including a 10‑year-old who said her father was taken by immigration enforcement), and legal liability risks. Opponents emphasized examples of serious offenders that county officials say their jail-model screening identified and that state and local officials use to argue the program prevents violent crime.
Committee exchange: The hearing included extended questioning on empirical claims (detainer breakdowns, economic modeling, and whether ICE would increase street-level operations if counties end agreements). Witnesses disagreed about causation: advocates pointed to increases in ICE arrests where 287(g) exists and national reports of disparate enforcement; sheriffs said their data show they remove dangerous persons and that ending 287(g) risks more community apprehensions. Several delegates pressed for independent studies and local data.
Next steps: The committee heard extensive testimony and public comment and will consider the record and potential amendments before any vote.
