And while looking at the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024's text it's clear to me that if an MoC wants to visit an ICE detention facilty no prior notice is permitted by statute, I can't parse the alleged exception cited by Noem. If the OBBBA did make some sort of exception, that's one thing--but I can't figure out what she's pointing to and her footnote (5) is unhelpfully cut from the snip that's posted to make it easy to understand whether there really is a valid point buried in there or not.
That's looking at the text of the 2024 act and the text of the bloated OBBBA.
Yes, I can make assumptions and declare them fact, but I try to avoid that. (With "try" doing a lot of heavy lifting there.)
Hoping to find clarification from the ever dubious Internet, there's an article on MN NPR that seems to side (reluctantly and with a bit of disapproval) with Noem's reading of the law--if only because the NPR wonks didn't cite chapter and verse to say where she's wrong ... On the other hand, NPR may just assume that no proof is given ad hominem style, or maybe the proof is hard because it's so complicated that the typical NPR commuter either wouldn't or couldn't follow it.
And at this point I bail.
= new reply since forum marked as read