Key Takeaways
• Eight Maryland sheriffs’ offices have active 287(g) agreements as of July 2025, up from three last year.
• Over 1.1 million Maryland residents live in counties with 287(g) partnerships, about 20% of the state.
• 2025 Maryland Values Act to ban 287(g) failed despite Democratic supermajorities in the legislature.
As of July 2025, Maryland sheriffs’ offices have expanded their partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the 287(g) program, a move that has sparked strong debate across the state. This analysis examines the purpose and scope of these partnerships, the methods by which they operate, key findings from recent developments, and the practical effects on Maryland’s communities. The report also compares stakeholder perspectives, presents relevant data, and discusses trends and limitations, offering a comprehensive, unbiased view of this complex immigration enforcement issue.
Purpose and Scope
The main purpose of this analysis is to provide a clear, factual overview of the growing number of Maryland sheriffs’ offices participating in the 287(g) program with ICE. The scope covers:
- The historical context and recent expansion of 287(g) in Maryland
- Legislative efforts and political dynamics shaping the program’s future
- The perspectives of law enforcement, immigrant advocates, and ICE officials
- The real-world impact on local communities and immigrant families
- Trends, patterns, and possible future developments
This content aims to inform policymakers, community members, and anyone interested in immigration enforcement about the facts, processes, and implications of the 287(g) program in Maryland.
Methodology
This analysis draws on official statements, legislative records, and direct reports from involved parties, including Maryland sheriffs’ offices, ICE, immigrant advocacy groups, and the Maryland General Assembly. Data is sourced from public records and recent news coverage up to July 3, 2025. The report uses objective language, avoids bias, and presents evidence-based conclusions. Where possible, official government links are provided for further reference, such as the ICE 287(g) program page.
Key Findings
- Eight Maryland sheriffs’ offices now have active 287(g) agreements with ICE, up from three just a year earlier.
- The program’s expansion means over 1.1 million Maryland residents—about 20% of the state’s population—now live in counties with 287(g) partnerships.
- Legislative attempts to ban 287(g) agreements in Maryland failed in 2025, despite Democratic supermajorities.
- Law enforcement leaders claim the program improves public safety by removing dangerous criminals, while immigrant advocates argue it increases fear and mistrust in immigrant communities.
- The political divide over 287(g) remains sharp, with future legislative battles expected.
Data Presentation and Visual Overview
Maryland Counties with Active 287(g) Agreements (as of July 2025)
- Frederick
- Harford
- Cecil
- Washington
- Garrett
- Carroll
- St. Mary’s
- [Eighth county, recently added]
Visual Description:
Imagine a map of Maryland with the above counties shaded. The shaded areas cover much of the state’s northern and western regions, showing a clear trend of expansion from a few counties to a broader geographic area. The population living in these counties now represents about one-fifth of Maryland’s total.
Timeline of 287(g) Expansion in Maryland
- 2008: Frederick County becomes the first in Maryland to join 287(g), starting the longest-running program in the country.
- 2024: Three counties participate.
- Early 2025: Four new counties join, bringing the total to seven.
- July 2025: An eighth county signs on, marking the largest expansion to date.
Legislative Activity
- 2025: The Maryland Values Act (House Bill 1222) is introduced to ban 287(g) agreements statewide.
- Outcome: The bill fails in the Senate, allowing the program to continue and expand.
Comparisons, Trends, and Patterns
Growth of 287(g) in Maryland
The number of Maryland sheriffs’ offices participating in 287(g) has more than doubled in less than a year. This rapid growth is unusual compared to other states, where such agreements have often been reduced or ended due to political or community pressure. The expansion in Maryland is driven largely by Republican sheriffs, even as the state legislature remains under Democratic control.
Legislative Push and Pull
Despite repeated efforts by Democratic lawmakers to ban 287(g) agreements, the program has not only survived but grown. The failure of the Maryland Values Act in 2025 highlights the influence of local sheriffs and the limits of legislative power when strong opposition exists at the county level.
Community Impact
- Law Enforcement View:
Sheriffs like Frederick County’s Chuck Jenkins argue that 287(g) keeps communities safe by removing nearly 1,800 individuals, many labeled as dangerous felons, since 2008. They believe the program prevents the release of serious criminals back into the public. - Immigrant Advocate View:
Groups such as CASA and policy leaders like Cathryn Jackson say the program creates fear, leads to racial profiling, and discourages immigrants from reporting crimes or cooperating with police. They see 287(g) as an extension of President Trump’s mass deportation policies, which they argue Maryland should not support. -
ICE Perspective:
ICE officials, including Maryland’s deputy assistant director Matt Elliston, defend the program as a key tool for identifying and detaining “criminal aliens,” stating that public safety depends on keeping such individuals out of communities.
Patterns in Enforcement
The 287(g) program in Maryland is mainly used within county jails. Deputized officers screen people who are arrested for any reason. If someone is suspected of being undocumented, ICE is notified, and the person may be held for federal immigration action. This process can lead to deportation, even for those arrested for minor offenses.
Step-by-Step Process Under 287(g) in Maryland
- Agreement Signed:
A Maryland sheriff’s office signs a 287(g) agreement with ICE. -
Officer Training:
Selected detention officers receive ICE training and are deputized to enforce immigration laws. -
Screening:
Deputized officers screen all detainees for immigration status during jail intake. -
ICE Notification:
If someone is suspected of being undocumented, officers notify ICE. -
Detainers and Removal:
ICE may place an immigration detainer (a request to hold the person for up to 48 hours) or start removal (deportation) proceedings. -
Coordination on Release:
Local authorities coordinate with ICE on the timing of detainee release, often giving 48 hours’ notice for those convicted of serious crimes (as proposed in recent legislation, though not yet law).
Official information about the 287(g) program and its agreements can be found on the ICE 287(g) program page.
Evidence-Based Conclusions
Public Safety Claims
Supporters of the 287(g) program, including many sheriffs and ICE officials, point to the removal of nearly 1,800 individuals from Frederick County alone since 2008 as evidence that the program targets dangerous criminals. They argue that these removals prevent serious offenders from returning to the community.
However, immigrant advocates counter that many people detained under 287(g) are arrested for minor offenses or traffic violations, not violent crimes. They argue that the program’s broad reach sweeps up people who pose no threat, separating families and creating widespread fear.
Community Trust and Reporting
There is strong evidence that 287(g) programs can reduce trust between immigrant communities and local police. When people fear that any contact with law enforcement could lead to deportation, they may avoid reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations. This can make communities less safe overall, according to many advocacy groups and some law enforcement experts.
Legislative and Political Dynamics
The failure of the Maryland Values Act in 2025 shows that, even in states with strong Democratic majorities, local law enforcement and political opposition can block efforts to limit federal-local immigration cooperation. The expansion of 287(g) in Maryland is a clear example of this dynamic.
National Context
Maryland’s expansion of 287(g) stands out at a time when many other states and counties have ended such agreements, often due to community pressure or changes in federal policy. The state’s experience may influence debates in other parts of the United States 🇺🇸, especially as national immigration policy continues to shift.
Limitations
- Data Gaps:
There is limited public data on the exact offenses for which individuals are detained under 287(g) in Maryland, making it hard to assess claims about the program’s focus on dangerous criminals versus minor offenders. -
Community Impact:
While advocates report increased fear and avoidance of public services, there is no comprehensive statewide study measuring these effects in Maryland. -
Political Uncertainty:
The future of 287(g) in Maryland depends on ongoing legislative efforts, local elections, and possible changes in federal immigration policy. -
Stakeholder Bias:
Both law enforcement and advocacy groups have strong positions, which can shape the way data and outcomes are presented.
Practical Implications for Maryland Residents
- For Immigrants:
Living in a county with a 287(g) program means any arrest, even for a minor issue, could lead to ICE involvement and possible deportation. Many families report avoiding public services or keeping children home from school out of fear. -
For Law Enforcement:
Officers in participating counties have expanded roles, screening for immigration status and coordinating with ICE. This can strain resources and affect relationships with the community. -
For Policymakers:
The ongoing debate over 287(g) highlights the challenge of balancing public safety concerns with the rights and well-being of immigrant residents.
Trends and Future Outlook
-
Continued Expansion:
Republican-led counties in Maryland are likely to keep joining the 287(g) program, especially as long as local sheriffs support it. -
Renewed Legislative Efforts:
Immigrant advocacy groups plan to push for another statewide ban in future legislative sessions. -
National Influence:
Maryland’s experience may serve as a model or warning for other states considering similar partnerships. -
Community Response:
Advocacy groups are increasing outreach and legal support for affected families, while sheriffs’ offices continue to defend the program’s public safety benefits.
Official Resources
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) Program
- Maryland Sheriffs’ Association (for updates on participating counties)
- CASA Maryland (for advocacy and support resources)
- Maryland General Assembly (for legislative updates)
Conclusion
The expansion of the 287(g) program among Maryland sheriffs’ offices has brought federal immigration enforcement deeper into local communities, affecting over a million residents. While law enforcement leaders and ICE argue that the program removes dangerous criminals and protects the public, immigrant advocates say it spreads fear, divides families, and undermines trust in police. The sharp political divide in Maryland, with failed legislative efforts to ban 287(g) despite Democratic control, shows how complex and contentious this issue remains.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, the future of 287(g) in Maryland will depend on ongoing political battles, community advocacy, and possible changes in national immigration policy. For now, the program’s reach continues to grow, making it a central issue for Maryland’s immigrant communities, law enforcement, and policymakers alike.
For more information on the 287(g) program and to see which counties participate, visit the official ICE 287(g) program page.
Actionable Takeaway:
If you live in a Maryland county with a 287(g) agreement and have questions about your rights or immigration status, contact a trusted legal aid group or advocacy organization for guidance. Stay informed about local policies and legislative developments, as these can directly affect your community and family.
Learn Today
287(g) Program → A federal agreement allowing local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws after ICE training.
ICE → U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws.
Immigration Detainer → A request to hold a detainee for up to 48 hours for ICE to take custody.
Sheriffs’ Office → Local law enforcement agency led by an elected sheriff in Maryland counties.
Maryland Values Act → 2025 legislative bill proposing to ban 287(g) partnerships statewide, but it failed.
This Article in a Nutshell
Maryland has rapidly expanded its 287(g) program, involving eight sheriffs’ offices as of July 2025, igniting political debate over immigration enforcement and community impact across the state’s diverse counties and populations.
— By VisaVerge.com
