Ilhan Omar, other Dems blocked from ICE visit after Minneapolis shooting

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: msn/Axios

8h


Three Minnesota congressional Democrats — including Rep. Ilhan Omar — were denied access to an ICE detention facility just outside Minneapolis on Saturday morning.

Why it matters: The incident outside the Whipple Federal Building in St. Paul comes amid escalating tensions and protests over an ICE agent's fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

What they're saying: Omar said during a press conference she wants people to know, "this is a blatant disregard of the law."

Reps. Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison, who represent suburban Twin Cities congressional districts, were also present and denied access after they were initially let in.

Omar said she called first to say she and the other representatives were coming, They were initially let in, but Omar claimed two officials then got a message "that we were no longer allowed," declining any further access to the building.

Omar and the other lawmakers also said they were told that because the facility was funded under the Big Beautiful Bill Act, they could be denied access.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/ilhan-omar-other-dems-blocked-from-ice-visit-after-minneapolis-shooting/ar-AA1TXzSG

[pandr32]

1. Actual police need to escort reps doing oversight.

If anyone refuses them they should be arrested.

[azureblue]

4. true

We know ICE will stonewall, so go in with some power. The ICE thug comes out and says no, then grab him and drag him out as fast as possible. And block the doorway so no ICE can leave the facility. Just like ICE does, assume they are criminals and let the courts sort it out.

[FBaggins]

5. "Actual police" have no such authority

What would be the charge?

[pandr32]

9. I'm not a lawyer.

Until ICE Barbie signed the new law (yesterday) for 1 week notice, not allowing elected representatives in was against the law. Police could be used to escort the reps and make sure the law was enforced without trouble. If any of us have been threatened or fear for our safety we can call police to be present. The police in each city where ICE operates should be working to protect the safety of the people.
We need to press for this and I don't know if that 'law' Ice Barbie signed is legal and/or enforceable.

[Igel]

10. Not a law.

Consider it a directive for those under her authority.

Don't ascribe them more power than even they claim.

[Ford_Prefect]

2. Next time bring a Federal warrant and a CAT D10.

[azureblue]

3. Then put ICE agents in a seige

No one in, no one out. impound all vehicles, allow them no supplies. If the detention facility can ignore the law, then we can bend the law, too. There is no legal foundation for ICE at all.

[OldBaldy1701E]

8. Bingo! (n/t)

[angrychair]

7. What does that even mean?

they were told that because the facility was funded under the Big Beautiful Bill Act, they could be denied access.

That isn't a thing. Who do they think signs the checks? It's Congress and no one else.

[Igel]

11. I can repeat the claim.

Statute quoted widely is that the 2024 appropriations act gives MoC full access and they cannot be denied entry to any ICE detention facility for "oversight" (which is a word with no well defined meaning, as far as I can tell). Their delegates or appointees can be required to give 24 hours advance notice, but actual members cannot. That text is easy to find because that's what the law says: Things funded under that bill can't have individuals performing 'oversight' blocked.

So that claim has potential teeth.

The claim by Noem is that the OBBBA specifically states that some type of funding expanding ICE/CBP was excluded from that provision, so that claim may have teeth at other times but not for this one--because all the facilities are explicitly to be funded under OBBBA-granted funds. I found that harder to search for in the text of the big bloated bill because that text could be something as innocuously plain-text unsearchable as "article xxxxx of yyyyy does not apply to provisions of section 3(e)," where the xxxxx and yyyy might be a statute designation, refer back to the bill and paragraph by name and number, or reference it in some other way and where there are 200 "sections 3(e)". After 5 minutes I gave up so some legal eagle can track it down (but that would mean active effort to confirm Noem's right, and that's disincentivized; to show she's wrong would be a harder task).