Jenkins does not intend to withdraw immigration plan

Jenkins would withhold funding from any agency or nonprofit that continues to serve illegal immigrants.

‘‘I haven’t changed my mind,” Jenkins said. ‘‘There was some compelling testimony. I’m not without a heart. But there is another side of the coin not heard last night from the people that want to protect our taxpayers. I think that’s lost.”

The commissioners on Tuesday are scheduled to discuss the 19 bills proposed for the package of legislation they will present to the Frederick Delegation to the General Assembly in November.

Due to Frederick’s form of government, certain legislation can only be approved by the General Assembly, even if it would apply to the county.

That includes Jenkins’ immigration plan. He said he wants the illegal immigration bill included because he believes the federal government has failed to protect the U.S. border. He argues that local governments across the country are enacting similar bills because of failure on the federal level.

Jenkins said he has received a lot of e-mail from residents on the issue. Though he did not know the precise number, he said it was ‘‘10-to-1,” meaning that for every e-mail opposed to his proposal, he received 10 in favor.

He said he hoped his supporters would have come out Tuesday night to speak, but believed that pressure from immigration proponents kept them away. ‘‘I think it’s difficult for folks,” he said.

The Frederick chapter of the NAACP, church leaders, immigration groups and local Hispanics packed Frederick City Hall Tuesday night telling Jenkins and his board colleagues that they do not want the immigration proposal included in the legislative package.

It was an emotional night of testimony intended to persuade commissioners that the proposal would promote discrimination and create a rift in the community, similar to what the county faced 20 years ago when the Ku Klux Klan was active.

‘‘I love this county,” said Antonio Ramirez, who remembers the KKK demonstrations in Frederick’s Baker Park 20 years ago. ‘‘Nobody paid for my education. Now I have to worry about not being white. I had family that died in World War II. I had family that died in Vietnam and I have family in Iraq, and I’m not white.”

Tears flowed down the cheeks of Eugenia Juarez of Buckeystown when she spoke about a recent incident at a local Laundromat.

‘‘I feel the proposal is a failure to everyone who has worked hard for this community,” said Juarez, who said she is an American citizen. ‘‘I’ve lived here 20 years and never once have I felt uncomfortable leaving my house until last Sunday. I went with my mother to the laundry mat to wash clothes, and two men were sitting there. I said ‘hi’ and one of the men said ‘we don’t need any beaners around here.’ I think this law makes people feel they are not wanted. ... I once had hopes for my children to be raised here. But if this proposal passes I don’t want my children to be treated differently because of the color of their skin.”

Judging from Tuesday night’s testimony, the most controversial part of the plan is to attempt to overturn Plyler vs. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court decision that forces schools to enroll illegal immigrants by not asking students if they are in the country legally.

‘‘Eighty-nine years ago on the 19th of December, we moved from Virginia to Maryland,” said Lord Nickens, former president of the Frederick branch of the NAACP. ‘‘Why? Because of the same thing proposed to the little Mexican children today ... I would like to see that proposal tonight defeated and not go to Annapolis.”

Nickens’ comments were received with applause from the crowd, as was much of the testimony during the four-hour hearing.

It was also clear at the hearing that illegal immigration is a hotbed issue that has spilled over to the commissioners themselves.

Since Jenkins proposed his plan in August, tension has been heating up between him and Board President Jan H. Gardner (D).

Concerned that the delegation will be consumed with state budget issues during the 2008 session, Gardner has said she only wants to submit two or three of the proposed 19 bills. Gardner wants the legislation on a trash disposal franchise as the main focus.

Gardner has stated that the county cannot enforce immigration laws, so it should not be in the package.

A heated exchange broke out between Gardner and Jenkins Tuesday night, when Gardner questioned a speaker on the legality of the county challenging the 1982 Supreme Court decision.

Gardner told Jenkins that his proposal to deny education to students that are illegal is ‘‘unlawful.” Jenkins countered that Gardner should not be questioning speakers on the legality of the bill.