Ivey on being denied access to ICE facility

Which is what they now require, notice ahead of time. Yeah, well, we actually aren't required to give notice.

No, but they are setting that as-- We sent the notice anyway, just to--

Clarify your intent and to let them know. --just to be polite, basically, try and avoid this kind of scenario. They received the letter and they knew they had it, and we brought it along with us when we came in any event. But when we came there and went into the building, we went up to the sixth floor, which is where they took us, but wouldn't let us get beyond the external door. So we stood sort of in a corridor there where the elevators were. And then the acting director came out and said, we're not going to let you in and talked about why. But, I gave her a copy of the law that says, under no circumstances can members of members of Congress be denied access to any ICE facility. And this is talking about not just detention facilities.

And this is in the law.

Yeah, it's in the law. Plus, the Constitution requires that we have the power of the purse. What do you fear is going on there that they're not showing you? Well, we got comments and contacts from people who'd been housed there and released complaining about inhumane conditions, like no food, no access to medical care, lack of food, and sleeping on the floors, the whole nine yards. Bad use of the facility for sure from a humanitarian standpoint, but probably a misuse of the facility anyway. It's just meant to be an office building, and that's how it should be used. And does this intrude on due process rights or basic constitutional rights, even for those who are in this country without documentation? Yeah, actually, because the Constitution applies to people, even if they aren't citizens or even if they aren't here legally. And so we wanted to make sure that whoever is here is held humanely. But there are larger due process questions, as well. So, for example, on the Eastern Shore, I was contacted by the family of a man, a pastor, who's been serving out there for two decades plus in the Easton area. They picked him up when he was coming out of, I think it was a Walmart or something, detained him in Baltimore. We were contacted. We reached out to the secretary's office immediately. But then they shipped him off to Louisiana, and were worried about him being fully deported. Now, this is a guy who's raised his kids here. And there have been protests in the Easton area on the Eastern Shore to have him brought back, to no avail. So certainly not a criminal. And the evidence is clear that he is not a criminal, has no criminal record. Certainly not a criminal, no MS-13 ties or anything like that, pillar of the community, for sure. And is it your belief, Congressman Ivey, that most of the people in this facility in Baltimore also fall into a similar category of no criminal convictions or charges in the United States, are not public security or national security threats? For sure. I mean, what it looks like they're doing, is basically casting broad sweeps. Anybody that looks like a Latino male, for sure, and of a certain age gets swept up and brought into these facilities. And in many instances, they're trying to deny them even the opportunity to have bond hearings. So Kilmar Abrego Garcia was taken out of the country and sent to El Salvador, even though there was a court order saying you can't send him to El Salvador, and he was under the jurisdiction of a judge here in the United States already. And we still haven't gotten him back and free all the way here in the United States, even though the Supreme Court said, bring them back and give them his due process. He's still waiting to get the due process on the immigration side. And you and other Democrats in Congress are suing the administration over this very question. So this is going to get resolved in the court. What the law says and what they're doing is going to be tested. Well, for sure. I mean, there's a group of House Democrats who've been denied in other places, like New York, for example, filed lawsuits yesterday, I believe it was. And I think it's a winner. I mean, we've got constitutional grounds, we've got statutory grounds. The position they've taken is frankly, indefensible from a legal reasoning standpoint. So it'll just be a question of time before this gets overturned and we get access to those facilities. Plenty of Republicans have criticized efforts that you have undertaken as stuntery, as playing games, as interfering with legitimate federal law enforcement procedures. Well, like I said on Monday, all they had to do was open the door. There would have been no TV cameras or anybody filming anything. We've been doing oversight investigations like this for hundreds of years here in the United States. It's routine practice. And frankly, if we weren't doing these, the taxpayers should be mad at us, because we have an obligation to make sure that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. We can't do that if we don't even go look at the facilities and conduct basic oversight. Just to clarify something you said. You were not bringing cameras with you. This was not a made for television event. You were just trying to see what you could see under the law. Well, no, people with cameras came, the media was there.

OK. But the upside on that now, is the videotape can be used for court cases going forward. We have an actual record of, I think, solid evidence of the reasons they gave us for denying us access. And I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Democratic Maryland Congressman Glenn Ivey, I appreciate the time. Thanks for coming in. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. We'll continue this conversation, because it will continue and go on.