Debate over 287(g): sponsors urge ban on local immigration enforcement agreements, sheriffs and executives warn of safety trade-offs

Senator Will Smith opened a large, hour-long hearing on Senate Bill 245 to bar state and local participation in 287(g) immigration-enforcement memoranda; the sponsor framed the bill as a measure to protect immigrant communities and public safety by removing a pipeline that, he said, led to detentions of people without convictions.

Comptroller Brooke Lierman and a coalition of county leaders, immigrant-rights advocates, the ACLU, public defenders and local councils urged the committee to pass SB 245. They described widespread fear that deters crime reporting, attendance at school, and access to services. "When families are reluctant to go to work, attend school, engage in daily economic activity due to fear of immigration enforcement, those impacts are felt across our state," Comptroller Lierman said, citing research on economic effects.

Supporters emphasized that the jail-based model screens people after arresting and booking, and pointed to repeated examples where detainers were issued for individuals who had no convictions or only minor charges. Attorneys and public-defender witnesses presented case examples they said showed due-process risk and wrongful detentions.

Sheriffs, county executives and corrections leaders defended jail-based screening as a tool to identify removable noncitizens who have been arrested for jailable offenses and described coordination with ICE as a means to remove convicted serious offenders. Frederick and Carroll County correctional officials explained that screening happens at booking and that their MOUs limit operations to detention centers; they said the bill would not prevent ICE operations but could push enforcement into public, uncontrolled settings.

Committee members questioned data on detainers and profiling, asked about federal preemption and state ability to regulate county constitutional officers, and probed whether banning formal MOUs would actually change enforcement on the ground. Senators asked for more precise data from counties; proponents said national and state data show most 287(g) detainers are placed on people without serious convictions and that the program has been used to amplify federal deportation priorities.

No committee vote was taken; sponsors and opponents left on sharply divergent views about trade-offs between community trust and the practical ability to remove criminals from local communities.