By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration secretly reinstated a policy restricting congressional access to immigration detention facilities just one day after an ICE officer fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis, according to attorneys for several Democratic lawmakers. These lawmakers were blocked from visiting an ICE facility near Minneapolis, prompting their lawyers to request an emergency hearing before U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who previously blocked ICE from enforcing similar policies. The lawyers argue that the reinstated seven-day notice requirement violates Cobb’s prior order and is particularly urgent due to ongoing negotiations over funding for the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. Cobb has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Wednesday.
Read the original article here
The subject of the day is a judge being asked for an emergency hearing, all because some members of Congress were blocked from entering an ICE facility in Minneapolis. Honestly, it’s a real head-scratcher.
The core of the issue seems to be about this new rule requiring seven days’ advance notice before anyone can inspect these facilities. It’s not sitting right with anyone, especially when you consider that landlords generally only need to give tenants 24 hours’ notice before entering their property. This advance notice just feels wrong, as if it’s there specifically to give ICE a chance to hide any evidence of wrongdoing, like abuse, torture, or the illegal detention of people.
The main point of contention is that ICE is simply not complying with the law. Congress has oversight power, and according to the law, they should be able to conduct unannounced inspections. It’s that simple. There’s a general sense that judges are starting to get fed up with these kinds of shenanigans. The situation is so outrageous it is hard to imagine a judge seeing this and not becoming angry. It’s not a question of debate. It’s the law.
And frankly, the sentiment here is that if a federal facility is going to block members of Congress, that facility should then be blocked. Consider shutting off the utilities, blocking entrances and exits; the whole building should be shut down. It is clear that someone doesn’t want Congress to see what is happening in that facility.
The conversation then shifts to the suffering within these facilities. People are reportedly dying, and those who do make it out are often facing serious health issues. This environment demands oversight now. This is precisely why the law exists.
The idea is then floated that if the state of Minneapolis isn’t using its police power to force ICE to comply with the law, then they are complicit in ICE’s potential crimes. The National Guard, local police, and even those deputized by the state can arrest ICE agents for breaking state laws. Federal agents do not have immunity for committing state crimes. The state needs to take action, and the clock is ticking.
The core of the matter centers around the ethics involved in these facilities and the question of why anyone would want to keep the public from knowing what goes on inside. The general consensus appears to be that something is terribly wrong.
The tone then changes and considers the long term ramifications of the events. It seems to believe that, even in the event of a political shift, a return to “normalcy” is likely not possible. The trust in institutions has been shattered, and it’s recognized that the constitution and government agencies are compromised. The fear is that the same patterns of behavior will continue unless there are severe consequences for those involved in any wrongdoing.
The discussion then touches on the need for thorough accountability, possibly even a reevaluation of the Nuremberg Trials as a model for justice. The sentiment is that leniency shouldn’t be an option. There’s a strong belief that the people involved, up to and including those in positions of power, need to face consequences to the fullest extent of the law.
The fear is not just about the past but also the future. There’s concern about what will happen to ICE agents and the power they’ve accumulated. The concern is that if things remain unstable, these agents could be running the streets. In these kinds of scenarios, the lack of transparency is the real killer.
The ultimate conclusion is that we need to address a long list of issues, and the only way to unify is to imprison the key architects of the issues. The suggestion is to create “Minnesota Trials.” It reflects the frustration, the anger, and the desperation that someone would feel in the face of such perceived injustice and abuse of power. It’s a call for accountability, a demand for justice, and a fear of a future where the rule of law is disregarded.