The motion was ruled out of order because it was a business meeting (rather than a hearing).

But it isn't the motion to subpoena that's a nonstarter (though it's likely that Noem will only testify when the majority wants her to)... the underlying concern simply isn't correct:

Members of Congress have the authority to provide oversight on ICE facilities

That's simply wrong. Congress has oversight authority and can delegate it to committees (which can send individual members of Congress and/or their staff). But those individual members have no such authority on their own, and Section 527 doesn't say otherwise. What it does say is that when Congress is performing oversight of these facilities, the executive branch can't spend any of the appropriated funds to prevent a member of Congress from entering the facility "for the purpose of conducting oversight". The problem is that individual members don't have the ability to declare that they're conducting oversight.

And since Goldman is an experienced attorney, he served as the lead majority counsel for the first TFG impeachment hearing, so you'd think he'd know.

That's why they don't push it by taking it to court.

There have been dozens of such cases already this year where Democratic members show up and demand entry (often displaying their congressional credentials) only to be turned away. It's a useful visual and it's great fodder for these types of clips. "What are they trying to hide" (etc.) - but they don't take it to court because they know they can't win.

Just like they'll send sternly worded letters demanding documentation or responses to questions with deadlines to respond... and then the next time that executive branch officer is testifying before Congress they'll ask pointed questions about why they didn't get a response to their oversight... while the witness tries to avoid the question.

But it's all for the cameras without any substance beyond the implied threat of what will happen when we next have the majority.

The court precedents go all the way back to the founding era (indeed into British rulings in the decades prior). Legislative bodies act by votes of the majority. They can delegate powers to groups or even individuals... but only by such acts. Individual members cannot wield the powers of the legislative branch without it.

And I like him a lot, he's willing to speak out on the important issues. I may also be in New York, but in the Northeast, and I'm currently stuck with national embarrassment Stefanik.

You say that "Congress has oversight authority and can delegate it to committees (which can send individual members of Congress and/or their staff) [to oversee ICE detention facilities.]."

Then you go on at length about how congress has no power or rights in this matter.

ETA: If the US Congress sits on its hands while American citizens and others on US soil
are kidnapped by masked men off the streets and sent to detention camps without due
process and held indefinitely they are guilty of malpractice.

If the committee votes to send a delegation (including a delegation of one) to an ICE facility to conduct oversight… it cannot be turned away (beyond very minimal process like giving 24 hours notice).

But if an individual member shows up without that vote (as was the case here) - he isn’t performing oversight. He’s just performing.

Just like the speech above. If he sends Noem a demand for her testimony… it has no force or effect. Which is why he’s asking the committee to vote to subpoena her.

It’s malpractice… which is a good reason to vote the bums out. But until then… they’re the ones who wield the powers of Congress.