Immigration policy remains front and center in Annapolis this week, as a bill that would ban cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities continues moving through the Maryland Senate.
As the legislation advanced Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker attempted — and failed — to carve out an exception for violent criminals.
Senate Bill 245 would prohibit local law enforcement agencies from participating in ICE’s 287(g) program, which allows local jails to hold undocumented suspects to hand over to ICE for possible deportation.
While efforts to end the agreements have largely fallen along party lines, Sen. Mary-Dulany James (D-Harford) made a rare break by defending the work being done under the jail-based program.
James introduced an amendment that would have blocked cooperation with ICE “unless an individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony.” During a Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing on Tuesday, James said she has seen the program work responsibly in her county.
“I have a sheriff who I have enormous respect for who’s been running a 287[g] jail-based program,” she explained. “I’m impressed with how it’s run, I’m impressed with the agents who work with them, they are nothing like the people that I’m seeing on the screen, in the streets, they act nothing like it.”
Despite echoing recent polling showing a majority of Marylanders support cooperation with ICE inside detention centers, the amendment was swiftly shot down with little debate.
“We need to just get out of this business right now,” Committee Chair Sen. Will Smith (D-Montgomery) said.
“Last week, it would have surprised me. This week, it doesn’t,” political analyst John Dedie said. “It doesn’t because of what happened in Minnesota, the fact that you had that videotape of that person getting killed by ICE, it has changed a lot of the equation.”
Dedie told FOX45 News the vote reflects broader national pressures shaping state-level decision-making.
“Politics will always be prioritized over public safety in an election year because you want to keep your job and you’re running for reelection,” he said.
He also warned that rejecting any middle ground — even amendments focused on criminal offenders — could come with unintended consequences, particularly given the state’s proximity to Washington.
“I think that the concern lawmakers have to have is President Trump saying, ‘well, okay, you pass this law, I’m going to challenge it. I’m going to send more troops in, and let’s see what the courts say in the end,’” Dedie said. “You create a bigger confrontation.”
The bill now gets a third reading, the final step before a full Senate vote. If it passes, the bill would then move to the House for consideration.
Have a news tip? Contact Rebecca Pryor at rkpryor@sbgtv.com or on X at @RebeccaPryorTV