Thursday, February 5, 2026
Baltimore.news

Latest news from Baltimore

Story of the Day

Baltimore County Council Approves Two Immigrant Protection Bills in 4-3 Vote, Sending Measures to Executive

AuthorEditorial Team
Published
February 3, 2026/09:37 AM
Section
Politics
Baltimore County Council Approves Two Immigrant Protection Bills in 4-3 Vote, Sending Measures to Executive
Source: Wikimedia Commons / Author: James G. Howes

Party-line vote advances two measures affecting county policy on immigration-related cooperation and services

The Baltimore County Council approved two pieces of legislation on Feb. 2, 2026, with both measures passing 4-3 in votes that split along party lines. The bills now move to County Executive Kathy Klausmeier, who can sign them into law or veto them.

The legislation addresses two distinct areas: setting limits on the role of county personnel in immigration enforcement matters and placing the county’s Office of Immigrant Affairs into the county code.

What the “Protections for Non-U.S. Citizens” bill does

One bill creates a new set of rules under the county’s human resources provisions titled “Protections for Non-U.S. Citizens.” As written, it bars county employees, departments and agents—language that includes contractors and elected or appointed officials—from enforcing federal immigration law while acting within the scope of county duties.

The bill also restricts assistance to immigration enforcement agencies in immigration-related investigations or arrests, and limits the use of county resources for civil immigration enforcement, unless a requirement is imposed by state or federal law or an international treaty. It further establishes confidentiality requirements for information related to citizenship, nationality, or immigration status, with exceptions when disclosure is legally required or authorized in writing by the person involved.

  • Prohibits county personnel from engaging in immigration-law enforcement as part of county work, with legal exceptions.
  • Limits collection, distribution, and disclosure of immigration-status information, with specified carve-outs.
  • Allows participation in criminal-law task forces that include immigration agencies, while prohibiting use of county resources for civil immigration enforcement and setting conditions for withdrawal if the task force becomes a pretext for immigration enforcement.
  • Requires county departments to develop implementation policies within 120 days of the law’s effective date and to report annually on requests received from immigration enforcement agencies and how those requests were handled.

The measure includes enforcement provisions: employees who violate the subtitle may be sanctioned under personnel rules and applicable law, and complaints are directed to a defined set of county officials for review.

Codifying the Office of Immigrant Affairs

The second bill establishes an Office of Immigrant Affairs within the Office of the County Executive and defines its purpose and duties in county law. The legislation sets out responsibilities that include advising the county executive, council and agencies on improving access to services and resources for immigrants; coordinating policies affecting immigrant communities; supporting compliance with federal, state and local language-access laws; collecting and compiling data related to immigrants in the county; and serving as a liaison between the county and immigrant communities.

The bill also creates a reporting requirement: on or before June 30 each year, the office must submit a report to the county executive and council describing its activities and any specific policy or legislative proposals. Separately, within 180 days of the law taking effect, the county administrative officer must report on whether any positions or budgets will be consolidated under the office and, if so, how and when.

Context and next steps

During the council debate, Republican Councilman David Marks raised concerns about altering the county’s framework for working with the federal government and questioned the need to legislate the Office of Immigrant Affairs. Supporters, including bill sponsor Councilman Izzy Patoka, argued that codification would make the office harder to unwind by a future administration.

Both bills were approved by the council and sent to the county executive for a decision to sign or veto.

If enacted, each bill is written to take effect 14 days after enactment.