Howard County Executive Allan Kittleman on Tuesday said he will veto a controversial bill that declared the county a safe place for illegal immigrants and limited county employees’ involvement in enforcing federal immigration law.
Members of the County Council had stripped the bill of the label of “sanctuary county” before approving it on a 3-2 vote Monday night.
Still, Kittleman decried the measure, saying it was “irresponsible to hastily file this legislation.”
“If the sponsors had reached out to key stakeholders prior to filing it, they would have learned this was unnecessary legislation. They would have heard from the police department, other government agencies, and organizations supporting immigrants that in Howard County, we do not have a problem with this issue,” he said.
Kittleman’s move could kill the issue; the council would need a 4-1 margin to override the executive’s veto.
The bill, sponsored by Democratic Council members Calvin Ball and Jen Terrasa, was originally written to declare Howard as a sanctuary county where police officers and most government employees would be prohibited from asking residents about their immigration status.
Howard Co. Council approves decision to become a ‘sanctuary’ for immigrants. (WJZ)
Howard Co. Council approves decision to become a ‘sanctuary’ for immigrants. (WJZ)
The bill would have codified the county’s current practices, which proponents said was necessary to assure fearful residents of their safety. Howard officials have said police already don’t investigate immigration officials or ask residents about their status.
The bill was tweaked in an attempt to allay fears the federal government might yank funding from the county, including clarifying that police could communicate with federal authorities on public safety issues. The council also removed the term "sanctuary" from the bill.
There is no accepted legal definition of a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, a label given to cities and counties with an array of policies about not assisting with immigration enforcement. The Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes sanctuary jurisdictions, counts more than 300 cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies or laws.
President Trump’s executive order to strip federal funding from "sanctuary cities" could impact several local governments. (Baltimore Sun video)
President Trump’s executive order to strip federal funding from “sanctuary cities” could impact several local governments. (Baltimore Sun video)
The bill inspired weeks of intense debate in the suburban county, a debate that only intensified after President Donald Trump issued a travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries. That ban has been challenged in the courts.
The Howard County Council held two lengthy nights of public testimony on the measure, and more than 200 people turned out to Monday’s council meeting to witness the vote on the bill. Supporters of the measure wore green, while opponents dressed in red.
Councilman Greg Fox, the lone Republican on the council, said during Monday’s meeting that he felt the bill was a poorly conceived piece of legislation that increased divisiveness in an attempt to bridge it. He questioned the need for the bill.
"I’ve seen nothing that demonstrates the need for additional protection," he said.
The other dissenting vote came from Councilman Jon Weinstein, a Democrat, who said the bill was "purely symbolic."
"An issue of this importance demands a thorough, inclusive and rational deliberative process," Weinstein said Monday.
Ball and Terrasa were joined by Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty in voting for the bill.
Kittleman announced weeks ago he planned to veto the bill, calling it a "hollow political statement" that would compromise community safety and risk federal funding for the county.
Baltimore Sun Media Group reporter Fatimah Waseem contributed to this article.
pwood@baltsun.com
twitter.com/pwoodreporter
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
