Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Takoma Park hears Annapolis update as council rejects putting immigration-protection resolution on next agenda
Summary
Legislative advocate Anne Secott told the council 287(g)-related bans and redistricting bills are advancing in Annapolis; council members debated a proposed resolution and rejected a motion to place a work session on next week's agenda after extended discussion over timing and staff readiness.
Anne Secott, Takoma Park's legislative advocate, told the council the Maryland General Assembly was moving quickly on several items that matter to the city, including bills to prohibit local agreements with federal immigration enforcement (often described as 287(g)-type programs) and other measures that had advanced out of committee.
"The house and Senate are moving very fast on, 1 of the immigration bills," Secott said, adding that committee passage meant those measures would be debated on the floors in coming days. She also highlighted the governor's introduced budget and upcoming bill-introduction deadlines, and urged the council's legislative working group to monitor developments.
Following the update, Council member Landman moved to add a work session next week to discuss a draft resolution that would (among other items) urge state and federal action to limit certain immigration-enforcement activities and outline local implementation and community supports. Council member Schlegel seconded the motion.
The motion prompted lengthy debate. Proponents said the resolution would give residents and the council space to discuss how police and community organizations should respond if enforcement activity increases, and to press for rapid implementation of state and county measures. Opponents argued the draft mixed federal, state and county items without ready legislative text, risked consuming staff time needed for other priorities, and could be perceived as performative unless paired with concrete on-the-ground supports. Several council members suggested informal briefings, legislative working-group review, or a separate public forum instead of a formal work session next week.
When the clerk called the roll, the motion to add the work session failed: Council member Landman voted yes; Council member Dibala voted no; Council member Schlegel voted yes; Council member Gilbert voted no; Council member Hansack voted no; Council member Weselek voted no; Mayor Searcy voted no. The council did not change the agenda for next week.
Council members and speakers in public comment emphasized two recurring themes: a desire to protect vulnerable residents from enforcement harms and a parallel desire to prioritize direct, local actions (rapid response, food assistance, partnership with nonprofits and faith communities) that residents say will make a more immediate difference.
The city manager and police department were referenced repeatedly during the debate: City Manager Desperto read aloud a statement from Police Chief Antonio Duvall earlier in the meeting that reaffirmed Takoma Park officers do not participate in civil immigration enforcement and outlined a duty to intervene and report unlawful conduct by federal agents. That statement was cited by council members who said it should be amplified to reassure residents.
Next steps: Council members opposed to the immediate work session asked sponsors to refine the draft, provide full legislative texts and stakeholder input, and coordinate with staff so any future work session can be productive. The council did not adopt the resolution or take a formal substantive vote on its language at this meeting.
