Listen to the article
Maryland Sheriffs Defy Governor’s Ban on ICE Cooperation
Maryland’s attempt to curtail local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities has encountered significant resistance as sheriffs from nine counties announce plans to continue working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite new state legislation.
Governor Wes Moore recently signed a bill ending the 287(g) cooperation agreements between local law enforcement agencies and ICE, but county sheriffs are devising alternative methods to maintain collaboration while technically complying with state law.
“We can continue to work with ICE without necessarily being in the program,” Frederick County Sheriff Charles Jenkins told reporters. “We can still do the 48-hour holds on individuals with detainers, we can still contact ICE to let them know if an individual is about to be released with a detainer, we can also provide arrestee lists to ICE so they can review and check it.”
Frederick County has maintained the nation’s longest-standing 287(g) program, which Jenkins says has facilitated the transfer of approximately 1,890 undocumented immigrants to federal custody over its 18-year existence. The program formally authorized local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions under federal authority.
Other counties that operated 287(g) programs before the state ban include Wicomico, Harford, Carroll, Allegany, Cecil, Garrett, St. Mary’s, and Washington. Officials from these jurisdictions have similarly indicated they will pursue alternative methods of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The conflict highlights growing tensions between state and local authorities over immigration enforcement priorities. Sheriff Jenkins expressed concern that the state’s prohibition could ultimately lead to more disruptive enforcement actions.
“What we’re now going to see as we release these criminals over time, and we don’t turn them over to ICE in our jails, is that ICE is going to come out on the street to make their apprehensions,” Jenkins warned. He suggested this approach could increase community tensions and potentially lead to more dangerous enforcement scenarios than the controlled environment of county detention facilities.
When asked for comment on the sheriffs’ plans, Governor Moore’s office deferred to a statement from the Garrett County Sheriff’s Office, which noted that the new law “does not eliminate or hinder our ability to communicate with ICE regarding the impending release of individuals of interest.”
This interpretation appears to confirm Jenkins’ assessment that certain forms of cooperation remain legal, creating a gray area that local authorities are exploiting to maintain relationships with federal immigration enforcement.
The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of national debates over immigration policy and enforcement priorities. Maryland’s Democratic leadership has positioned the legislation as promoting trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, arguing that entanglement with federal immigration enforcement discourages crime reporting and cooperation from vulnerable populations.
However, the sheriffs’ resistance underscores deep political divides on immigration enforcement, particularly in more conservative counties where elected officials often campaign on public safety platforms that include immigration enforcement.
The standoff may intensify next week as Maryland lawmakers consider additional legislation that could further restrict local law enforcement cooperation with ICE, potentially closing the “workarounds” currently being employed by county sheriffs.
As the situation develops, both sides appear entrenched, with county officials determined to maintain federal partnerships they view as essential to public safety, while state leadership pushes forward with policies aimed at separating local policing from federal immigration enforcement.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Interesting to see how local officials are responding to this new state law. I’m curious to learn more about the specific alternative methods they plan to use to collaborate with ICE.
Yes, the details on these alternative methods will be important. Maintaining public safety should be the top priority while also upholding the state’s new restrictions.
This situation highlights the tensions between federal and state/local immigration enforcement. Sheriffs need to tread carefully to balance public safety with complying with the new state restrictions.
Agreed, navigating these intergovernmental dynamics is tricky. Sheriffs will have to be creative in finding lawful ways to work with ICE while respecting the state’s new limits.
It’s concerning to see sheriffs openly defying the state’s new law. While public safety is crucial, officials still need to uphold the law as written, even if they disagree with it.
It’s a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. Sheriffs need to balance public safety with upholding state laws. Hopefully they can find lawful ways to work with ICE that meet everyone’s needs.
Agreed, this requires nuanced policies that respect both local autonomy and state authority. Finding the right balance will be challenging.
The 287(g) program has been quite controversial, so it’s not surprising to see pushback from some sheriffs. However, state laws need to be respected even if officials disagree with them.
You make a fair point. Sheriffs have a duty to uphold the law, even if they personally oppose certain policies. Finding legal ways to cooperate with ICE will be key.