
ICE processing center is all but empty when California Congress members arrive to inspect
On Monday, the Congress members got their first look at the basement facility known as B-18.
But Reps. Brad Sherman, Judy Chu and Jimmy Gomez said that they were left with more questions than answers — and accused the government of sanitizing the center.
'They wanted to show us nothing,' said Gomez, whose district includes parts of downtown L.A. 'It was nothing, it was like no one was there. It was deliberate so members of Congress cannot conduct oversight.''
Scores of migrants, as well as some U.S. citizens, have been taken from Home Depot parking lots, car washes, and other locations by masked and heavily armed agents and brought to B-18 since early June. Some detainees have complained of overcrowding and being held for multiple days.
The facility can hold up to 335 migrants, but there were just two people in one of the holding rooms on Monday, the members said at a news conference in downtown L.A. after their visit.
The group's previously scheduled visit was canceled by ICE. Monday's visit took days of planning and advance notice, according to the politicians.
They described a sparse scene inside B-18, with nine holding rooms, each with two toilets.
Chu, whose district includes Monterey Park, described the floors as concrete and said that there were no beds. She said ICE detainees are supposed to be held at the facility for only 72 hours, but she has heard stories of people kept there for 12 days.
Some detainees have reported receiving one meal a day, she said. On Monday, she visited the food pantry at B-18, which Chu described as 'scanty.'
'I am deeply disturbed by what I saw and what I heard,' Chu said.
Chu also said she has been told that detainees have no soap or toothbrushes.
A representative for the Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about the politicians' complaints.
'It's alarming that it's taken so long for congressional members to gain access to this site,' said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, a nonprofit that seeks to protect the rights of immigrants.
Perez was able to visit Narciso Barranco, a Mexican national whose three sons are U.S. Marines, in June. Perez said he saw Barranco after he'd been held at the facility for three days. Perez said that Barranco, who was punched and pepper-sprayed during his arrest, did not receive medical attention.
The Department of Homeland Security shared video of his arrest on social media and said Barranco attacked an agent with his gardening tool.
Barranco told Perez that each of the rooms held 30 to 70 people at the time and that some had to sleep standing up, Perez said. Food was scarce and they didn't have access to showers.
The ICE facility was designed as a processing center, not a detention facility, Perez said.
Sherman, who represents parts of the San Fernando Valley and Pacific Palisades, said that one of the two detainees at B-18 on Monday rested with his head on a table.
Sherman said he 'illegally' took a picture during his visit and that he shouted out to several people being brought into the facility for processing, asking them if they were U.S. citizens or green card holders. No one replied, he said.
Sherman, Chu, Gomez and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who joined the group after their visit, criticized the ongoing immigration enforcement, and in particular the use of masked, roving agents.
A federal judge last month temporarily barred the government from mass sweeps in Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that the targets are in the U.S. illegally.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which sued the federal government over the sweeps, described a 'dungeon-like' area and accused the administration of failing to 'provide basic necessities like food, water, adequate hygiene facilities, and medical care.' Detainees were allegedly subjected to overcrowding and did not have adequate sleeping accommodations.
'Under such conditions, some of those arrested are pressured into accepting voluntary departure,' the lawsuit stated.
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has said that claims of poor conditions at ICE detention centers are 'false' and that the agency 'has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.'
On Monday, Chu said that she asked ICE representatives during the tour why people were jumping out of vans with masks, and no identification.
She said the representatives replied, 'That's not us, and we go in if there's probable cause, if there's a warrant out there.'
Gomez, who has been repeatedly turned away from entering the B-18 facility since the crackdown started earlier this year, is part of a group of Democratic House members suing the federal government over the lack of access.
The lawsuit, filed last month in federal district court in Washington, said the individuals attempted to visit a detention facility, either by showing up in person or by giving Homeland Security Department officials advance notice, and were unlawfully blocked from entering.
ICE recently published new guidelines for members of Congress and their staff, requesting at least 72 hours' notice from lawmakers and requiring at least 24 hours' notice from staff before an oversight visit.
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo contributed to this report.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"America, You Are In Grave Danger": The Internet Is VERY Worried About Donald Trump's Disturbing Latest Move
The American public has grown increasingly concerned about President Donald Trump's moves toward authoritarianism and autocracy as he positions himself as being above the law and frequently mentions not leaving office at the end of his Constitutionally-granted second and final term. During a press conference on Monday morning, Trump announced a sweeping plan by his administration to increase its control over law enforcement in the United States capital city of Washington, DC. Washington, DC, is the capital city and the federal district of the US, but is not an incorporated state or part of one. Jurisdiction over DC belongs to Congress. He started the press conference with a comment on how crowded the room is, saying they need a ballroom instead. Attorney General Pam Bondi grinned along. Trump launches into the topic of the press conference. "And we're here for a very serious purpose. Very serious purpose. Something is out of control, but we're gonna put it in control very quickly, like we did on the southern border," he said. "I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor. And worse." Related: "This is Liberation Day in DC, and we're gonna take our capital back," Trump said. "We're taking it back." He announced his plan: "Under the authorities vested in me as the president of the United States, I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act — you know what that is — and placing the DC Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control." "In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, DC and they're gonna be allowed to do their job properly," Trump continued. He then directly addressed the journalists in the room about the supposed crime hotbed of DC, saying, "You people are victims of it, too." President Trump then said that "The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that of Bogota, Colombia, Mexico City, some of the places that you hear about as being the worst places on Earth," as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nodded along. "The number of car thefts has doubled over the past five years, and the number of carjackings has more than tripled," Trump said. "Murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever." "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people. And we're not gonna let it happen anymore. We're not gonna take it," Trump told the crowd. He then repeated that the problem would be treated like the southern border, which he said "nobody comes to" anymore. For clarity, the Justice Department reported early this year that violent crime in Washington, DC, is down 35% from 2023. According to the DC Metropolitan Police Department, the very agency that Trump is seeking to federalize, violent crime is currently down 26% year-over-year. "We are not experiencing a spike in crime," DC mayor Muriel Bowser told MSNBC on Sunday. "In fact, we're watching our crime numbers go down." Related: Richard Stengel, author and former government official under President Barack Obama, said that, "Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover." People quickly hopped on Reddit's r/politics to discuss the CNBC article about Trump's announcement (you can watch the full press conference here). This is what some of the over 3,000 commenters had to say: 1."Federalizing the DC Police under fake numbers... Literally watching fascism unfold before our eyes, people. It's past time to get pissed." —thedrizztman 2."I thought he said he couldn't deploy the National Guard on January 6? So now we know he could have, but didn't because it was his people." —swiftfoot_hiker 3."This is the big red flashing sign of fascism for anyone still wondering." —ImperatorUniversum1 Related: 4."Every word out of this MF'er's mouth is a LIE. EVERY WORD. Taking over DC is to keep protestors out because this administration's next actions will be brutal." —mhouse2001 5."Martial law in motion. MF didn't even bother to stage a Reichstag fire." —alloutofchewingum 6."Here we fucking go. And sweet Jesus, it's only August of year one..." —KingMario05 7."This is the death of the republic we're watching. Temporary takeovers have a very long history of becoming permanent. We're so fucked." —Violent_Mud_Butt 8."So, he could have done this to put down the insurrection at the Capitol?" —aeppelcyning 9."This is a pretext for something. His excuse is the homeless — what I really think he's preparing for are protests or maybe even riots. Maybe connected to the upcoming 'peace talks' with Russia, or the Epstein scandal." —rainghost 10."So that's it. No more freedom or rule of law in the US. And all the flag-waving Trump supporters don't care. Not a peep from them." —Large-Phase9732 11."So I assume DC residents won't be able to vote ever again." —V_T_H Related: 12."Full fucking stop. Yes, this is a distraction attempt from Epstein, among other things, but this is a pilot program for doing this in other major cities around America. This is the next step in a full fascist takeover of this country. But hey, eggs are... I mean, gas is... I mean, Kamala's laugh." —spqr2001 13."We are going to find out if the military is going to uphold their oath to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Trump is the biggest domestic terrorist I've seen in this country in my lifetime." —Ol_Turd_Fergy 14."That's it folks. Democracy in the US is now over. What a shameful country." —boringfantasy 15."Authoritarianism it is then, I guess." —Jonny_Segment 16."Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that Trump had no authority to do this. I mean, that's what he said for January 6. He said that the Speaker of the House needs to make this call. Could he have been lying?" —dydski 17."Is this about homeless people? What is this about? Those National Guard are gonna be real sad when they realize a ton of the homeless individuals they are arresting are vets." —Resident_Standard437 finally, "America, you are in grave danger. An authoritarian is seizing power over the police, based on a made-up emergency. This is a precursor to stealing the elections. It's the only thing left between them and ruling forever. They are stealing our democracy and do not plan to give it back. And all of you are silent. The republic is dying, rapidly and right before our eyes, and nothing is being done to stop it." —kevendo So, what do you think? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:


Vox
23 minutes ago
- Vox
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.


Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Elise Stefanik's Chances of Beating Kathy Hochul Surge in New York—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican, gained nearly 10 percentage points on New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul since last month's Siena University poll of registered statewide voters, which one pollster attributed to conservatives "coming home" to their candidate. Newsweek reached out to Hochul via email for comment. Why It Matters Hochul, New York's first female governor, who took over after Andrew Cuomo resigned in 2021 following sexual assault allegations, was elected in 2022 after defeating Republican Lee Zeldin in what was the state's narrowest gubernatorial result in nearly three decades. Although New Yorkers have heavily leaned Democratic in most local and statewide elections, Republicans have gained traction with the help of a strong base combined with more political sway from independent voters. Polls highlight room for Republicans like Stefanik, or perhaps other challengers like Republican Representative Mike Lawler, to contest Hochul's reelection efforts. What To Know Siena's newest poll of New York State registered voters, released Tuesday, shows that although Hochul's job approval and favorability ratings are actually up from June, her lead in a potential gubernatorial race against Stefanik fell to 14 points, 45-31 percent, down from a 23-point lead in June, 47-24 percent. Nearly half of voters say they are at least somewhat familiar with Stefanik; however, just 29 percent say she has the right experience to be governor. Also, by a margin of 49-37 percent, they say that if she were elected governor, it would be bad for New York. New York Representative Elise Stefanik at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. New York Representative Elise Stefanik at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 42-44 percent favorability rating improved from 42-47 percent in June. Her job approval rating has improved since June, now standing at 53-42 percent compared to 50-45 percent in June. Stefanik's favorability rating is 27-32 percent, with 41 percent saying they don't know or have never heard of her. The poll surveyed 813 registered voters between August 4-7. Siena pollster Steven Greenberg told Newsweek on Tuesday that really the largest difference is that "Republicans have come home for Stefanik." Independents have also slightly shifted, going from supporting Hochul by 7 percent in June to now favoring Stefanik by 3 points. "Is 14 points a danger sign?" Greenberg said. "Well, in New York, it's certainly a warning sign given the enrollment of the state, which is 49 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican—so, better than a two-to-one enrollment advantage for Democrats. "No Republican has won in New York State since 2002, when George Pataki won his third term, so it's been a long time. It's an uphill battle for any Republican going up against any Democrat in the state of New York. That said, Hochul only beat Zeldin three years ago by six points, so there is room for movement." Stefanik's numbers could certainly sway between now and next year as more people become aware of her and the policies she supports, he added. Greenberg noted how independent voters' support of Stefanik, 35-32 percent, essentially shows how 67 percent of that electorate can make or break candidates' chances during a lengthy campaign cycle. "It shows that about one-third of independents aren't willing to choose a candidate right now between Hochul and Stefanik," he said. "I think it shows opportunity and warning for both candidates." Mamdani Remains Strong Tuesday's poll also shows New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a Democrat, receiving support from 44 percent of registered voters compared to 25 percent who support independent Andrew Cuomo. Another 12 percent support Republican Curtis Sliwa, and 7 percent support independent incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. City voters under 35 are overwhelmingly supporting Mamdani, Greenberg said, as are a plurality of voters aged 35-54. Voters ages 55 and older back Cuomo over Mamdani, 38-32 percent. What People Are Saying Team Elise Executive Director Alex DeGrasse told Newsweek: "The latest Siena poll is catastrophic for Kathy Hochul as she is losing independent voters to Elise Stefanik, is below 50 percent on the ballot, and only 35 percent of voters want to re-elect Kathy Hochul as voters are increasingly looking to Elise Stefanik to deliver new leadership. "Chairwoman Elise Stefanik will continue to focus on providing results such as delivering the largest middle class tax cut in New York history. She will repeal Kathy Hochul's failed bail reform and dangerous sanctuary cities policies and cut taxes for New Yorkers." Governor Kathy Hochul on X on August 8: "Massive price hikes are coming for New York families because of Donald Trump's tariffs. Sellout Stefanik supports them. Why? She'd rather score political points with Trump than fight for you. I'm putting money back in New Yorkers' pockets." What Happens Next The 2026 New York gubernatorial election is scheduled to take place on November 3, 2026