Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detention Facility Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge ban on converting warehouses into immigration detention centers
Summary
Supporters of HB 6 30 told the Judiciary Committee that warehouses are unsuitable for humane detention, citing inspections of Baltimore facilities, potential public‑health concerns and local infrastructure strain around a proposed Washington County site; proponents urged a favorable report and legal advocacy to delay projects.
Supporters of House Bill 6 30 told the House Judiciary Committee the state should prohibit operating immigration detention centers in buildings not designed for custodial use, such as warehouses or closed schools.
Sponsor Delegate Matthew Schindler said the emergency bill responds to reports of substandard conditions and the unsuitability of concrete floors, sparse plumbing and minimal infrastructure for long‑term detention. "Buildings such as warehouses, abandoned factories, or closed schools were not designed for custodial housing," he said.
Andrew Donlin, legislative director for Congresswoman McLean Delaney, described oversight visits to ICE facilities in Baltimore and characterized some findings as "serious concerns about the health and safety of those detained." He and other witnesses said a proposed warehouse in Washington County (Williamsport) raised particular alarm given local infrastructure limits and the prospect of a 1,500‑person capacity.
Panelists debated whether preventing in‑state facilities would simply move people out of Maryland to Louisiana, Texas or Virginia and make legal access harder. Donlin and others said delay and litigation are legitimate tactics to slow projects they consider harmful; he said his delegation supports complementary federal and state measures to block the Washington County site.
Legal counsel and attendees warned the committee the state lacks clear case law on whether it could block federal use of private property; witnesses described unresolved questions involving the supremacy clause and anti‑commandeering principles and urged the committee to proceed carefully while signaling state opposition.
Ending — The panel concluded after extended questioning on local impacts, costs for roads and water infrastructure, and the legal uncertainties of state versus federal authority; proponents urged a favorable report.
