Maryland lawmakers are bracing for a major legislative battle next session over immigration enforcement. This comes after Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat, recently said he will support legislation to ban 287(g) agreements, the partnerships that allow local police to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in carrying out federal immigration duties.
A similar bill led by Del. Nicole Williams, a Prince George’s County Democrat, passed the House last session but stalled in the Senate. With Ferguson’s backing, which was absent last session, the measure is expected to return to the forefront, Maryland policy analysts and lawmakers told The Baltimore Sun on Monday.
Since the last session, ICE’s operations have become more aggressive nationwide, and mitigating them has become even more of a priority for Democrats, analysts said. Meanwhile, the number of Maryland counties with these agreements has more than doubled from three to eight counties, including Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, St. Mary’s, and Washington counties, according to state records.
Williams will again sponsor the bill, which she said is expected to draw co-sponsorship from House Judiciary Committee Chair Del. Luke Clippinger, Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair Sen. Will Smith and Sen. Karen Lewis Young, all Democrats.
On Friday, Ferguson wrote on X: “Now is the time to prohibit 287(g) agreements between ICE and law enforcement agencies in Maryland. Recent months demonstrate that ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are operating with impunity, violating constitutional rights of American citizens and immigrants alike. For our law enforcement agencies to maintain the public trust, they cannot aid and abet that lawlessness.” He did not respond to The Sun’s requests for comment by the Monday deadline.
Williams and Young said they learned of Ferguson’s support through social media. Williams said she was “pleasantly surprised” by the announcement and is eager to work with him, while Young said she was pleased but “not totally surprised.”
“I have been having ongoing conversations with the Senate President about this issue – during session last year, I met with him in July and, recently, I spoke to a member of his staff about 10 days ago,” Young, who represents Frederick County, said. “I did see an increased appetite for [Ferguson] to support a total prohibition.”
However, Senate Minority Whip Justin Ready criticized Ferguson’s commitment to the legislation, calling his statement on X “quite literally not correct.”
“If the concern is ICE operating outside of parameters, then wouldn’t we want to KEEP 287G agreements in place so that there’s a clear process in place with how law enforcement is cooperating with ICE,” he said. “The Senate declined to move on the bill because it could put significant federal funding in jeopardy and would make our community less safe. Nothing has changed in that regard.”
Policy Analysts Weigh In
Richard Vatz, a professor at Towson University with a background in political persuasion, cautioned that the state’s increasingly progressive stance could invite national criticism.
“Protecting illegal immigration is not a winning position for Democrats; it benefited Trump in his election and continues to help Republicans nationally. It may help Democrats in Maryland elections, but it also energizes Trump and the federal government to penalize Maryland through withheld support,” Vatz said, warning that the state’s leftward shift could have serious consequences.
National polling suggests that voters are increasingly skeptical of the Democratic Party’s handling of illegal immigration, indicating that making it a top-line issue may be a damaging strategy nationally. But regional policy analysts say Maryland’s context could be different.
Todd Belt, a professor of political management at George Washington University, said while immigration is typically a “losing issue,” the bill’s narrow focus gives Democrats room to act without taking a hard stance on broader immigration policy.
“Because this bill is narrowly tailored towards local law enforcement interaction with ICE, it doesn’t negate the policy overall,” Belt said. This gives room for political cover on the larger immigration issue, while taking a stand against the excesses of ICE operations.”
Joseph Rudolph, a political science professor at Towson University, said that increasingly aggressive ICE enforcement actions across the country have drawn sharp public criticism, which may give Democrats an edge this session.
Johns Hopkins’ Matthew Crenson said Ferguson’s backing reflects “the consensus in the state,” pointing to Maryland’s strong support for Kamala Harris in the 2025 presidential election and its sizable Latin American immigrant population.
“The ground is shifting nationally… support for Trump’s aggressive immigration policies has been dropping, so I’m not sure this is a losing strategy for Democrats if they do it right,” Crenson, a political science professor, said.
Niambi Carter, an associate professor with a background in immigration policy at The University of Maryland, said 287(g) agreements raise questions about the allocation of state resources, especially given Maryland’s budget constraints.
“Asking [local police] to do immigration enforcement is using state efforts for a duplication of efforts … and also puts federal responsibilities on local police agencies that aren’t trained long or well enough, even under these 287g agreements,” she said.
Carter added that the agreements create an “identity problem” for Maryland, pointing to Maryland’s generally blue-leaning voters and adding, “When you have these different agreements that allows ICE to operate in different counties, and have this assortment of arrangements, it really does create some confusion about who we are and what our posture is going to be as a state on the issue of immigration.”
Maryland’s partisan divide
The Baltimore Sun reached out to all 188 members of Maryland’s General Assembly, 17 of whom responded by a Nov. 17 deadline to share their thoughts on legislation banning 287(g) being introduced next session. Their responses revealed a sharp partisan divide.
Republican lawmakers described 287(g) as a critical public safety tool, arguing that the agreements help local police remove “violent criminals” from communities and provide a clear structure for working with federal immigration authorities.
Several, including Sen. Ready and Dels. Johnny Ray Salling, Robin Grammer and Susan McComas, said the program keeps residents safe and warned that restricting it could put communities at risk.
Dels. Kevin Hornberger, Kathy Szeliga and Lauren Arikan also said misinformation surrounds the program.
Hornberger, who represents Cecil County and has opposed past efforts to ban an agreement active in his district, said 287(g) only applies to people already in custody. “Law enforcement is not out profiling,” he said. “They’re not looking and asking folks on the street. This is after they’ve been detained … Crime is down, and it’s largely because we’ve gotten federal assistance and we’re getting these bad actors off the streets.”
Del. Chris Tomlinson, who represents Carroll and Frederick counties, where the program is also in place, said Republicans face an “uphill battle” given the Democratic leadership’s support for the bill.
“When you have two Committee Chairs and the Senate President backing proposed legislation, I can say with great confidence that this is almost a done deal, and we haven’t even stepped foot in Annapolis yet,” he said. “Saving the 287(g) program will certainly be a top priority for the House Republican Caucus, and we will use every tool at our disposal to stop this bill from passing.”
Democrats, by contrast, said the agreements sow fear and mistrust in immigrant communities and raise civil rights and humanitarian concerns. Sen. Young and Dels. Adrian Boafo and Clarence Lam described the bill as “necessary” to protect residents and prevent “overzealous enforcement and racial profiling.”
Del. J. Sandy Bartlett said she strongly opposes policies that separate families, while lead bill sponsor Del. Williams and Del. Aaron Kaufman argued that ending the agreements would allow local police to focus on community-based policing rather than federal immigration enforcement.
“In communities where these agreements exist, communities of color and especially individuals who are first-[generation] Americans and immigrants are fearful of interacting with law enforcement, whether they have seen criminal activities going on within their neighborhoods or worse yet are a victim of a crime within their community,” William said. “That’s why we are putting forth this legislation again this session.”
Have a news tip? Contact Mennatalla Ibrahim at mibrahim@baltsun.com.
from Baltimore Sun https://ift.tt/5ZWAwVL
via IFTTT
