Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,392 posts)
11. I can repeat the claim.
Sun Jan 11, 2026, 03:30 PM
6 hrs ago

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).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Actual police need to escort reps doing oversight. pandr32 Yesterday #1
true azureblue Yesterday #4
"Actual police" have no such authority FBaggins Yesterday #5
I'm not a lawyer. pandr32 9 hrs ago #9
Not a law. Igel 6 hrs ago #10
Next time bring a Federal warrant and a CAT D10. Ford_Prefect Yesterday #2
This message was self-deleted by its author FBaggins Yesterday #6
Then put ICE agents in a seige azureblue Yesterday #3
Bingo! (n/t) OldBaldy1701E 11 hrs ago #8
What does that even mean? angrychair 19 hrs ago #7
I can repeat the claim. Igel 6 hrs ago #11
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Ilhan Omar, other Dems bl...»Reply #11