Green Party argues move was delayed and insufficient — while local sheriffs question enforcement authority.
By MDBayNews Staff
Governor Wes Moore has officially signed legislation banning 287(g) agreements between Maryland local law enforcement and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Supporters call it a victory for immigrant communities. Critics on the right call it a reckless political maneuver that prioritizes ideology over public safety.
But now, even voices on the left are saying it isn’t enough.
According to a February 17 press release from the Ellis/Andrews Green Party campaign, the signing is “welcome, but insufficient,” arguing that Moore delayed action and that broader immigration enforcement continues unchecked.
That unusual alignment — criticism from both sides — exposes the deeper tension in Maryland’s immigration debate.
What the Law Does
The legislation prohibits local jurisdictions from entering into new 287(g) agreements — federal partnerships that allow local sheriffs to act as immigration enforcement agents. Nine Maryland counties had active or pending agreements prior to the signing.
Supporters of the ban argue that local police should focus on local crime, not federal immigration enforcement. They also argue that 287(g) agreements discourage cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
Opponents argue that removing these agreements weakens cooperation on serious criminal cases and limits tools available to address violent offenders who are in the country illegally.
Sheriffs Push Back
Even before the bill was signed, several county sheriffs publicly stated they would continue communicating with ICE regardless of the state-level ban.
Carroll County Sheriff Jim DeWees stated, “No politician or legislative body is going to tell me that I can’t communicate with another law enforcement agency on matters of public safety in my community.”
That response highlights a major unresolved issue: while the law bans formal deputization agreements, it does not prevent communication between agencies. Enforcement of the ban itself may depend on how aggressively the Moore administration chooses to police local compliance.
The Green Party’s Critique
The Ellis/Andrews campaign claims Moore and Senate President Bill Ferguson previously worked to stall a similar 287(g) ban after it passed the House last year.
They argue families lived under these agreements for an additional year due to political hesitation.
The campaign also cited ICE arrest data, stating that more than 3,300 people were arrested in Maryland in 2025, with over two-thirds having no criminal conviction. They further referenced controversial incidents involving ICE operations in Anne Arundel County and ongoing detention facility expansions in Washington County and Howard County.
Their broader platform calls for full abolition of ICE, sanctuary protections, state-level oversight of federal agents, and legal challenges from Maryland’s attorney general.
That proposal goes far beyond the current legislation — and would fundamentally reshape Maryland’s relationship with federal immigration enforcement.
The Center-Right Perspective
While progressives argue the bill doesn’t go far enough, many Maryland conservatives argue it goes too far.
The core concern is this:
If local law enforcement cannot participate in structured federal agreements, does that create operational blind spots in identifying serious offenders who are subject to removal?
Proponents of 287(g) programs often point to their use in targeting individuals already arrested for serious crimes. Opponents argue the programs sweep too broadly and chill cooperation from law-abiding immigrant residents.
The question now becomes practical rather than ideological:
Will public safety outcomes change in counties that previously relied on these agreements?
And if sheriffs continue informal cooperation anyway, was this bill symbolic rather than structural?
Political Timing
The signing comes as immigration enforcement remains a flashpoint nationally. Maryland Democrats appear to be consolidating support among progressive activists ahead of 2026.
But the political risk is clear.
Suburban and rural voters concerned about crime trends may see the ban as weakening tools available to local law enforcement. Meanwhile, the left flank remains dissatisfied, arguing Moore moved only after political pressure mounted.
What Happens Next?
Three major factors will determine whether this law has real impact:
- How aggressively the state enforces compliance against local jurisdictions.
- Whether ICE expands its independent federal presence in Maryland.
- Whether public safety data shifts in counties previously using 287(g).
The debate is far from settled.
What began as a bill about administrative agreements is now part of a broader fight over state sovereignty, federal authority, public safety, and immigration policy.
Governor Moore may have signed the bill — but the enforcement battle has only just begun.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.