Frederick County Residents Seek Immigration Policy Reform, 287(g) Ban

(FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND) Residents pressed county leaders to back a statewide ban on the 287(g) program during the Legislative Town Hall on October 9, 2025, arguing that the federal-local partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) harms community trust and safety. Speaking to County Executive Jessica Fitzwater, attendees urged her to support legislation that would end local participation in 287(g) across Maryland.

Christian Benford, a first-generation American whose father fled El Salvador’s civil war, told officials that “Frederick prides itself on its diversity and its care for its marginalized communities,” adding that endorsing a full ban would “help solidify that.” Benford warned that the program pulls officers away from community policing and leaves people too afraid to call for help. He shared that his father faced repeated citizenship questions during traffic stops, a pattern residents fear could grow under a 287(g) agreement.

Fitzwater said she is not aware of any current General Assembly bills to prohibit counties from joining 287(g). She added that she spoke out against the federal policy last year and her position remains the same. Several speakers, however, pressed for more than statements, asking for explicit support for a statewide prohibition in the next session.

Frederick County’s role in the debate is unique. The county operates the oldest 287(g) program in the United States, launched in 2008, and has served more than 1,800 immigration detainers since then. Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, a Republican and vocal ally of President Trump, defends the agreement, saying it removes “criminals” instead of releasing them back into the community. Immigration advocates counter that 287(g) leads to racial profiling and drives victims and witnesses into the shadows.

Community voices at the Legislative Town Hall

Residents described daily tradeoffs: parents deciding whether to report domestic violence, workers hesitating to cooperate with police after thefts, and teenagers avoiding school events where officers may be present.

Speakers tied those fears to broader worries about the county’s direction as Maryland’s fastest-growing county. For them, the 287(g) program is not just a policy choice but a statement about whose safety counts.

• Concerns raised by opponents:
  • The program pulls local officers into federal immigration work, distracting from community policing.
  • Families fear routine contacts (traffic stops, reporting crimes) could lead to immigration screening.
  • Victims and witnesses may avoid police, reducing public safety and access to justice.
• Points emphasized by supporters:
  • ICE detainers and criminal histories justify keeping the agreement.
  • The partnership is presented as a tool to remove people with criminal records from the community.

“When families believe a traffic stop could lead to immigration screening, people avoid police entirely, including when they are victims.” — sentiment repeated by many town hall speakers

Attendees asked Fitzwater to align county advocacy with legislation that would bar local participation. While she emphasized other priorities this session, including affordable housing and education funding, residents pressed for immigration enforcement to sit higher on the agenda, saying it shapes whether newcomers feel welcome and safe.

Statehouse dynamics and county politics

Earlier in 2025, the General Assembly considered the Maryland Values Act, a bill that would have prohibited 287(g) agreements statewide and required current agreements to end by July 1, 2025. The bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate, where Democratic leaders declined to move the ban forward despite calls from immigrant rights groups, including CASA.

Today, seven Maryland counties have 287(g) agreements: Frederick, Harford, Cecil, Carroll, Garrett, St. Mary’s, and Washington—all led by Republican sheriffs. Frederick County stands out as the only 287(g) county that voted against President Trump in the 2024 election, sharpening the local divide over whether the program reflects community values.

That divide is also visible inside Frederick’s borders. In November 2024, Mayor Michael O’Connor said the city would create a Legal Advocacy Fund using taxpayer dollars to help residents affected by federal immigration policies. He also pledged that Frederick Police would not ask people about immigration status or help federal agencies detain or deport residents. County residents who oppose 287(g) frequently point to the city’s stance as a model that centers local trust and safety.

Law enforcement and public safety claims

Sheriff Jenkins has long framed 287(g) as a public safety tool. Under the agreement, trained local officers can assist ICE by screening people in county custody for civil immigration violations and placing detainers. ICE describes the partnership as a force multiplier for enforcing federal law in local jails.

Critics say that framing overlooks the day-to-day fear that spreads when families believe any police contact could carry immigration risks.

• Opponents’ arguments:
  • The program fuels racial profiling, even if screenings occur after arrest.
  • It discourages reporting of crimes and cooperation with law enforcement.
  • Individual stories—like Benford’s father being asked about citizenship during routine stops—illustrate why many feel vulnerable.
• Supporters’ arguments:
  • The partnership focuses on individuals booked into jail for crimes, not on people simply reporting incidents or seeking help.

The town hall repeatedly returned to one core question: Does working with ICE make Frederick safer, or does it keep victims from dialing 911? For many parents, that question determines whether they report burglaries, show up at crash scenes, or allow children to attend school events where officers may be assigned.

Resources and broader context

• For official information on how the partnership works, see the ICE overview of the 287(g) Program.
• For analysis on local-federal cooperation agreements and effects on mixed-status families, see coverage from VisaVerge.com.

Where authority and responsibility lie

While county advocates press Fitzwater to do more, the limits of county authority are clear. Even if she opposes the policy, ending 287(g) in Maryland would likely require state action. That reality is why the Legislative Town Hall became a stage for a larger push: residents want their county government to help carry the fight to Annapolis and put a ban back on the agenda.

The political stakes are high. County leaders who emphasize housing and schools say they’re tackling the basics that help everyone. Advocates argue those goals ring hollow if parts of the community remain fearful and unheard. In a fast-growing county, the decision to keep or end 287(g) will shape who feels seen and who remains in the background.

Fitzwater reiterated her opposition to the federal policy but stopped short of announcing a legislative strategy. For many at the town hall, that gap—between words and a concrete plan—was exactly why they came out on a weeknight to speak up.