No matter what happens with a pair of bills that would rein in federal immigration agents in Maryland, no one can say they didn’t get a full hearing.
The Senate Judicial Proceedings took five hours of testimony from dozens of witnesses Thursday, on one bill that would prohibit police from wearing face coverings while on duty and another that would eliminate agreements allowing local police agencies to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The hearing followed a rally by advocates late Thursday morning.
The bills are likely to be among the most emotional in this session, as increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement tactics by federal agents flooding U.S. cities continue to dominate the news. But Thursday’s hearings were largely unemotional, with the biggest outbursts being the occasional rounds of applause from the lobby outside the hearing room, where an overflow crowd watched a livestream of the proceedings.
Senators spent nearly two hours on a bill to prohibit face coverings for law enforcement officers in the state, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers who are mostly masked.
The second bill, discussed for about three hours, would bar local law enforcement agencies from entering into immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. Sheriffs in eight Maryland counties currently has the so-called 287(g) agreements with ICE, under which the counties agree to hold criminal suspects for ICE pickup if the local agency determines the suspect is in the U.S. illegally.
Senate Bill 245, sponsored by Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery), states that no local police officers or any “agent of the state” would be allowed to enter into an agreement with the federal government to enforce civil immigration law.
The bill, which failed in last year’s session, comes as immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump (R) is becoming increasingly aggressive and divisive, with Smith citing the case of a 5-year-old boy being detained by ICE in Minnesota.
“Immigrants have been used as this pawn for this whole political dynamic, and ICE has been used as that tool to vilify immigrants, to stoke fear, to disrupt lives and communities and to divide us,” said Smith, the chair of Judicial Proceedings.
“We should no longer refer our precious, critical law enforcement resources to federal immigration enforcement,” he said. “Instead, our law enforcement should be relentlessly focused on public safety. That’s what this bill intends to do that.”
Comptroller Brooke Lierman (D) testified in support of the bill, noting that immigrants contribute millions of dollars to the state’s economy, account for about 23% of the state’s STEM workforce and the same percentage of registered nurses.
“It’s just important to recognize that policies that promote stability and trust within immigrant communities also help protect and buoy Maryland’s economy and increase our economic resilience,” Lierman said.
But Sens. Chris West (R-Baltimore and Carroll) and William G. Folden (R-Frederick) said Maryland sheriff’s departments are not engaged in rouding up immigrants, just in holding immigrants for ICE once they’re already in custody.
“These 287(g) agreements, in fact, all they do is require that after someone has been arrested and brought into a detention facility, that arrestee is screened, and if it turns out that person is an illegal immigrant, ICE is informed. That’s it,” West said.
That may be, said Smith, but he said West glossed over the fact that some people have been arrested and turned over to ICE for minor offenses, and that there is a lack of due process for them.
“If we are in the business of doing ICE’s job for them, then that frees up other resources to do that field enforcement that we find to be so egregious in many senses,” he said.
The majority of witnesses Thursday testified in support of Smith’s bill, saying the 287(g) agreements encourage racial profiling and create anxiety and fear in immigrant communities.
The agreements “lead to local residents losing trust in the very law enforcement agencies that are supposed to protect them,” said Viviana Westbrook, state and local advocacy attorney at Catholic Legal Immigration Network based in Montgomery County. “I really hope that this year we will end 287(g) since it is complicit with all the violence and chaos and fear that ICE has been sowing.”
Some opposition
But supporters pushed back against what they say are the many misconceptions about the 287(g) program.
The eight counties with the 287(g) agreements have a strictly jail-based model and don’t handle street enforcement, they said. The work done by local authorities is done by correctional officers in a detention center who handle detainers, which are written requests from ICE that a local jail or other agency detain an individual for up to 48 hours, to give ICE time to take the person into federal custody to begin removal proceedings.
Cecil, Frederick and Harford counties have agreements where they can process individuals in local detention centers and then hand to ICE. The other five counties – Allegany, Carroll, Garrett, St. Mary’s and Washington – entered into agreements last year and can serve administrative warrants in a local jail.
Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees, whose jurisdiction signed onto an agreement in May, said his department implemented a warrant-based model to strictly serve administrative warrants.
“You can pass this law and abolish our 287(g) agreement, but no politician or legislative body will tell me that I can’t communicate with another law enforcement agency when it comes to a matter of public safety in my community,” DeWees said.
In November, the Wicomico County Council discussed entering a 287(g) agreement, but County Executive Julie Giordano (R) suggested holding off because the General Assembly might make changes to the program. On Thursday, Giordano told the committee her county is again considering an agreement with ICE.
“This bill does not eliminate ICE. It does not stop immigration enforcement,” she said, speaking against the legislation. “What it does is that it strips counties’ and correctional officers’ and elected officials’ ability to cooperate and coordinate with federal authorities in a responsible, structured and transparent way.”
The hearing came two days after several sheriffs joined Senate Republicans in Annapolis to speak in support of the 287(g) program as an effective public safety tool in their jurisdictions, and who said they would fight any attempt to end the program.
About four hours prior to Thursday’s hearing, Smith joined members of the immigrant rights and advocacy group CASA and other community leaders at a news conference to say ICE must go. Smith rejected the argument by critics that a 287(g) ban would be unconstitutional, saying sheriffs are bound to adhere to state law.
“While they do have responsibilities and powers vested in them through their status as a constitutional officer, the legislature can curtail that,” Smith said. “The department that the sheriff resides over is also a creature of the state, and so the state can also curtail those responsibilities and those rights. So, it’s fully constitutional.”
Standing alongside Smith on Thursday was Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George’s), sponsor of the House version of the 287(g) bill scheduled to be heard Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
Williams said the legislation remains necessary with what’s happening in the nation, especially under the Trump administration.
“This is one of those pivotal moments in our history as a country where what we’re seeing is unprecedented, and I think the way that we all respond is going to be in history books for our children and grandchildren to read about in the future,” Williams said.
Face coverings
Before the Senate committee reviewed the federal enforcement bill, it spent nearly two hours on Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D-Prince George’s), that would ban face coverings on law enforcement officials.
The bill comes after months of aggressive immigration raids by ICE agents, who are typically masked. Augustine’s bill would prohibit officers from wearing items such as a balaclava, ski mask or neck gaiter on duty. It wouldn’t apply to an individual “actively engaged in an undercover operation” or when health-related matters are involved.
“Wearing masks is just simply not necessary for law enforcement to function. The wearing of masks undermines public trust,” Augustine said. “Masking within the normal course of duty has no tactical benefit, but does pose a risk to our collective public safety by creating fear and anxiety, particularly in situations that are already tense.”
Naureen Shah, director of immigration policy with the American Civil Liberties Union, said law enforcement agencies wearing masks represent tactics “of an authoritarian regime where people must watch what they say, lest they be disappeared by masked agents operating without accountability.”
After Augustine and Shaw spoke, several people could be heard clapping in the committee lobby area.
But Folden, who recently retired from law enforcement after slightly more than 30 years, said doxing has become a problem for officers on the job, such as during protests.
Neil Franklin, a retired Maryland State Police major who testified online, said he doesn’t see that as a problem, especially when federal immigration duties have been done for decades under other U.S. presidents.
“There’s no tactical advantage to wearing a mask outside of … normal performance of their duties,” Franklin said. “It’s actually a disadvantage in my professional opinion because again, it creates distrust in policing.”
Sen. Mike McKay (R-Western Maryland) asked why the bill includes potential criminal prosecution of officers who violate the law. Under Augustine’s bill, an officer found guilty would be charged with a misdemeanor and possible imprisonment for up to two years, a fine to not exceed $2,000, or both. In addition, the officer must waive “all immunity in a civil action.”
Augustine said the penalties are needed “to have strong enforcement mechanisms because of the damage that this practice has on the fabric of our community and human dignity in our state…. Don’t wear a mask [and] you don’t have to worry about it.”