Racial and ethnic profiling must end – and passing the Maryland Values Act is essential to making progress. The Maryland Values Act is a recently proposed bill that hopes to terminate a program called 287(g) in the state.
Since 1996, program 287(g) has authorized state and local law enforcement to enter formal agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allowing them to perform certain ICE duties in the name of public safety. For example, it grants officers the ability to interview individuals arrested on state or local charges for the sake of revealing their immigration status. Currently, three counties in Maryland implement some model of this program: Frederick County which started in 2008, Harford County in 2016, and Cecil County in 2019.
Since its inception, however, 287(g) has been mired in controversy, particularly regarding its enforcement practices. The program explicitly states that racial profiling is something that “will not be tolerated” and assures that any such claims will be handled with “the utmost scrutiny.” Yet, despite these assurances, there’s a troubling pattern emerging—a pattern where officers under the program still appear to target minorities.
What makes this even more concerning is the fact that data on the race or ethnicity of detainees hasn’t been consistently collected, raising serious questions about how—or even if—claims of racial profiling can be swiftly and properly investigated.
Nonetheless, two clear indicators suggest the program may be facilitating racial profiling: First, the questionable tactics employed by officers in detaining individuals, and second, the occurrence of “sweeps” in areas predominantly populated by people of color. These patterns cannot be ignored, and they demand a closer look.
One way the program provides opportunities for profiling is by not specifically targeting those who committed serious crimes and instead by providing the elbow room to charge (that is, simply accuse) someone for minor infractions like shoplifting.
Data from The Migration Policy Institute in 2010 tracked the types of charges for detainees in seven jurisdictions, breaking crimes into categories: Levels 1 and 2 for serious offenses, Level 3 for mostly misdemeanors, and a separate group for traffic violations like driving without a license.
The data revealed roughly 20% of detainees in Frederick County fell under category Level 3, while roughly 80% were charged with misdemeanors or traffic violations—an alarming figure suggesting that many of these arrests were pretextual. This raises serious concerns about due process, as individuals accused of minor infractions are denied a fair chance to defend themselves in court.
Furthermore, while ICE did not collect race-related stats, certain incidents have been made known that strongly suggest racial and ethnic targeting. In 2011 it was discovered that police officers in Maricopa County (located in Arizona) and Alamance County (located in North Carolina) had been conducting ‘sweeps’ in communities that were predominantly Latino/a.
More specifically, certain checkpoints were made to arrest individuals for traffic violations — it’s noteworthy to mention that undocumented immigrants were not able to obtain driver’s licenses in Maryland at this time. When taken to jail in 287(g) complying counties, individuals were put into ICE’s database and, again, without the opportunity to prove their innocence, were handed over to detention centers.
While this investigation may make it seem as if ICE is maintaining its oath to investigate racial profiling, this investigation only occurred after a significant number of constitutional abuses already occurred. It was only years later that the investigation could be completed.
This is not the only time laws will intensify discrimination against people of color and waste resources. Less than a month ago, during the first week of President Trump’s administration, the Laken Riley Act was signed into federal law.
A major, concerning similarity between this law and 287(g) is the partnership local law enforcement can establish with ICE to detain those only accused of crimes, among which are minor theft-related crimes like shoplifting, before sending them immediately to detention centers. Worse yet, Laken Riley’s language also creates a perverse incentive to detain and deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible for profit, meaning serious criminals have the opportunity to go under the radar.
Overall, a lot of progress needs to be made to ensure practices like profiling are reduced significantly, or, ideally, ended completely. Programs like 287(g) prohibit any advancement toward this goal. What’s worse, it seems laws resembling 287(g) are resurfacing, with both the Laken Riley Law and the recent push for bills like the Cloud Bill intending to expand the program.
If programs seek to reduce crime and harm against innocents, language should be highly scrutinized about opportunities they provide to harm ethnic and racial communities like the Latino/or African American populations.
Recent Comments