The Maryland House and Senate both gave final approval to legislation that would prohibit local law enforcement from formally partnering with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
Known as 287(g) agreements, the formalized partnerships give local law enforcement — or in Maryland’s case, only correctional officers — the ability to aid federal agents in certain immigration enforcement tactics.
Eight counties in Maryland have signed 287(g) agreements, and if the bill is signed into law, those counties will be required to terminate their partnerships immediately.
Both chambers still have to approve the opposite chamber’s identical version of the bill, but those last steps are expected to be finalized in the coming days.
While Gov. Wes Moore has publicly condemned ICE agents for not focusing their immigration enforcement on violent criminals and for “escalating” situations, he has not yet indicated if he will sign the legislation into law.
Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City), one of the bill’s sponsors, says he has not received indication of the governor’s plans, and Moore’s press secretary did not offer comment on Tuesday after the bills’ passage.
Tension in the House skyrocketed during debate over banning the agreements — both Democrats and Republicans gave impassioned speeches surrounding the bill’s implications and often targeted other delegates’ remarks, prompting House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties) to frequently step in.
The bill’s sponsor, Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George’s County), argued Maryland counties without 287(g) agreements are “working just fine” and that banning the partnerships would allow residents to engage comfortably with law enforcement.
“This bill… is about the state of Maryland. It is about every single person who lives in this state and ensuring that every single person who lives here in this state feels welcome to live here, feels protected by law enforcement within their community,” she said.
Del. Bernice Mireku-North (D-Montgomery County) referred to ICE immigration enforcement tactics as “a weapon of white supremacy" in her remarks, which prompted an interjection from Del. Matt Morgan (R-St. Mary’s County).
“[ICE agents] are not white supremacists, and the notion to constantly demonize these people, this whole notion of looking through the world view, through the lenses of the oppressed and the oppressor… it’s ridiculous,” Morgan said following Mireku-North’s comments.
Opponents of the bill argue 287(g) agreements are a structured way to hand-off undocumented immigrants in local custody to ICE agents and protect Maryland from more “boots on the ground” immigration enforcement.
Supporters of banning the agreements argue local law enforcement should not be aiding the Trump administration in its ramped up immigration enforcement tactics and should instead be focused on regional public safety.
The House version of the bill passed 99-40; Del. Frank Conaway (D-Baltimore City) was the only Democrat to vote against it.
The bill passed on party lines in the Senate 32-12 with similar partisan debate.
The Senate also gave final approval to SB0001, which would prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings with some exceptions.
The legislation is largely geared towards ICE agents, some of which have been documented wearing face masks when carrying out civil immigration enforcement.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has cautioned the state legislature that enforcing the ban on federal agents would be “difficult and likely unconstitutional,” but Ferguson disagrees.
“I would like anybody to point in the U.S. Constitution, where it says that ICE officers have the authority to wear masks,” Ferguson told members of the press on Friday. “ICE officers should be following Maryland law full stop. That is what the Constitution requires, and that is what this bill is about.”
Ferguson also pointed out on Tuesday that the bill was amended to change the violation from a criminal to a civil offense, which was one of the legal concerns surrounding the legislation.
Brown did note in his letter to lawmakers that the bill itself is “not clearly unconstitutional,” and Smith said he has “full faith that the Attorney General will do his level best to defend [Maryland] law.”
The bill passed for the third and final time by a vote of 31-13.
The House iteration of the law enforcement face mask ban is not scheduled for its first committee hearing until February 24.
