Chicago Apartment Raid

I'm not doubting that might have been overheard, it's just far more likely the person saying that was a child trafficker, not a child rescuer.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The witness stated explicitly that this was said in response to her complaint to the federal agents that what they were doing was detrimental to the children. The context makes crystal clear who was saying this.

You're just making shit up. Whatever is convenient for your narrative you're just inserting into the story with no evidence or rationale behind it. You are egregiously dishonest.

Oversimplification seems to be the hammer you’re swinging at every nail on this site, hmm?

No genius, this is your recent obsession. It doesn't even make sense what you're talking about, I haven't oversimplified anything, the fact that I haven't written 20 paragraphs on this doesn't mean there isn't more to say. You're just throwing words around with no apparent understanding of what they mean.

Oversimplification helps by making complex information accessible and easier to understand for a broad audience, but it hinders problem-solving and deep understanding by losing essential details, distorting reality, and leading to incomplete or faulty conclusions. While simplification can serve a purpose in initial comprehension, oversimplification becomes harmful when it creates misunderstandings, promotes poor decision-making, and fails to acknowledge the true complexity and nuance of issues. 

That makes absolutely no sense

To someone obsessed with oversimplifying everything, of course it makes no sense. Witnesses heard something and assumed an ICE officer said that. It is far more likely one of the child traffickers got pissed off and said that, as the motive would fit such a person. That would make sense. Ears are not the same as eyes unless you oversimplify everything. That's assuming someone who hated ICE didn't just make shifty things up anyway just to get on the news. Cause that never happens in America....

Witnesses heard something and assumed an ICE officer said that. It is far more likely one of the child traffickers got pissed off and said that, as the motive would fit such a person. That would make sense.

One of the child traffickers got pissed off? WTF are you talking about?

The witness was talking explicitly about the federal agents stating "they was clearly laughing, one of them was standing right here, he said fuck them kids". Her account was clear.

You are clearly trolling, no one is this stupid.

Oversimplification helps by making complex information accessible and easier to understand for a broad audience, but it hinders problem-solving and deep understanding by losing essential details, distorting reality, and leading to incomplete or faulty conclusions. While simplification can serve a purpose in initial comprehension, oversimplification becomes harmful when it creates misunderstandings, promotes poor decision-making, and fails to acknowledge the true complexity and nuance of issues. 

Thanks Debbyart

The witness was talking explicitly about the federal agents stating "they was clearly laughing, one of them was standing right here, he said fuck them kids". Her account was clear.

That wouldn't pass a court muster on multiple levels...a dark night...covered mouths....loud voices coming from everywhere....

But a chronic oversimplifier should not find those things much of an obstacle, I would assume.

1995

"NEW BEDFORD -- Dozens of law enforcement officers poured out the back of a moving van and into three South End houses Thursday night as part of a twin-city raid targeting drug-dealing illegal aliens.

At least nine people were taken into custody on immigration or drug charges after New Bedford state and federal agents raided five apartments here and one in Fall River simultaneously shortly after 6 p.m."

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/1995/10/06/city-raid-targets-drug-dealing/50655613007

1996

"In the past several months the Clinton administration has escalated factory raids by immigration cops, beefed up the border police, and stepped up the deportation of undocumented workers."

https://www.themilitant.com/1996/6016/6016_10.html

1997

"Scores of young Hondurans were smuggled here with promises of earning big money and then forced to sell drugs, the police said on Friday after a raid that netted six pounds of heroin and cocaine.

Three men were arrested on drug charges in the raid. Another 127 Hondurans taken into custody by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and will be deported.

The Hondurans ''were brought up on the promise that they would be making money, but they had a debt to the crew chief,'' said Lieut. Cliff Madison of the Portland Police Department. ''In a lot of cases, unless they sold a lot narcotics, it would be hard for them to pay off their debt.''

Most of those taken into custody lived in 12 cramped, cockroach-infested apartments, raided by about 60 law-enforcement officers from 11 Federal, state and local agencies."

https://web.archive.org/web/20171229032832/https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/28/us/national-news-briefs-indentured-aliens-found-selling-drugs-in-oregon.html

2015

California Apartments Raided in Federal Investigation of Chinese ‘Birth Tourism’

https://web.archive.org/web/20170127075009/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/california-homes-raided-in-federal-crackdown-on-chinese-birth-tourism.html

2016

"The charges announced today are the latest in a series brought by federal prosecutors arising out of the DEA’s investigation into a drug distribution ring operating in Vermont under the direction of Michael Villanueva, whose nickname is “Unc.” Between 2014 and 2015, Villanueva and his associates trafficked a significant amount of heroin, crack cocaine, and other drugs in Vermont. For much of this time, Villanueva lived at an apartment in St. Albans, but most of the group’s drug distribution occurred in Winooski, with Villanueva and his co-conspirators operating out of the residences on Malletts Bay Avenue listed in today’s indictments. At a press conference discussing his decision to charge the facilitators federally, Miller pointed to the “cumulative and concentrated impact of drug distribution activity at so many homes along one street in the heart of Winooski.”

https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2016/07/22/eight-people-charged-making-their-homes-available-drug-distribution

2017

"In August 2016, after a similar law enforcement operation targeting drug sales in Cutler Manor, fourteen individuals associated with the Cutler Manor Apartments were indicted federally in the Southern District of Florida for possession with intent to distribute various narcotics, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841. Each of the defendants pled guilty for their respective participation in the criminal conduct and received sentences ranging from time served to 151 months in prison.

Following the 2016 indictments, law enforcement continued to investigate the sale of narcotics both at the Cutler Manor Apartments and out of single-family houses located nearby, including throughout the Perrine area, in the Southern District of Florida.

According to the criminal complaints, law enforcement purchased various narcotics, including methylone, known as “Molly,” cocaine, and heroin from individuals both within the Cutler Manor Apartments and at nearby residences located in Perrine, including from defendants Williams, Pierce, Randall, and Lovett. During the course of today’s operations, law enforcement recovered both narcotics and firearms."

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/four-individuals-charged-federally-drug-operation-cutler-manor

2022

"Twelve Charged With Operating An Open Drug Market Inside A Bronx Apartment Building And Carrying Firearms"

https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2022/06/27/twelve-charged-operating-open-drug-market-inside-bronx-apartment-building

That wouldn't pass a court muster on multiple levels

This isn't a court of law genius.

So you also don't understand standards of evidence and how it relates to epistemology. I'll add that to the growing list.

Do you have a point?

Nice research, I learned a lot. Thank you.

@Double_R

While I don't think this recent Chicago raid was 'good,

I don't understand how it is 'new.

I'm not trying to say it isn't important,

But I think I am not understanding what you think makes it new and new concerning.

I think it is concerning, but old concerning.

Though something that we as a nation should still work on.

@Shoresy

I've recently been trying to use custom range search for time frame, when using Google.

So many results are of recent events otherwise.

I've also found I can get past some paywalls by using the wayback machine on some web pages.

Very handy. Nice research. Thanks.

While I don't think this recent Chicago raid was 'good,

I don't understand how it is 'new.

Maybe it's not new, but it's news.

I'm not trying to say it isn't important,

But I think I am not understanding what you think makes it new and new concerning.

I didn't see him say it was new, why is that important anyway.

Fascism has been done before too, that doesn't mean addressing it isn't urgent.

I think it is concerning, but old concerning.

Though something that we as a nation should still work on.

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Though I may be mistaken, it appears to me that Double_R is arguing this is new, and worthy of open armed rebellion.

Well, not that Double_R is arguing rebellion, but that 2nd amendment supporters and/or Chicago ought rebel and/or shoot federal agents.

Quite likely I am mistaken.

"Very curious to know what the Trump supporting immigration hardliners have to say about this.

I'm also especially interested in knowing what the 2nd amendment advocates here have to say. For years, despite how objectively dangerous and deadly it is to have a country flooded with guns, these folks insisted it was needed to fight back against government tyranny. So I assume then that you support Chicagoans arming themselves and getting ready to shoot down federal agents?"

Double_R #1

"That's the US government now."

Double_R #22

All of the years I cited in #37, were during democratic leaders I think.

Clinton, Obama, Biden.

I did not call it tyranny.

My point is I think people on the Left misrepresent Trump.

. . . Not that people on the Right don't misrepresent the Left.

I'm just confused, as the Chicago Raid 'seems to 'me as if it is something new and disaster.

I think it's not ideal, and something we should work on.

But I don't think it is new or disaster.

Federal agencies under the Trump administration conducted a pre-dawn immigration raid on a residential apartment building in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood on September 30, 2025, as part of a larger enforcement operation called "Operation Midway Blitz"

. The incident has been widely condemned by local and state officials and is part of a broader crackdown on sanctuary cities.

Of course, sanctuary cities will condemn deportation, legal or less than legal. That's probably the only simple thing about this discussion.

I am not understanding what you think makes it new and new concerning.

I never argued anything was "new". Slavery happened, Japanese internment camps happened, so of course, you can always find historical parallels if you dig deep enough.

What's different here from your other examples and is deeply concerning is that this was coordinated, deliberate, and unapologetic. Border Patrol (a federal agency meant for borders) deployed in military-style raids in a Chicago neighborhood. Black Hawks over rooftops, doors kicked in, families dragged out at gunpoint. No wrong address. No “bad intel”, this wasn’t a mistake. They didn’t care who got hurt as long as they got their show of force, because that was the point.

And even now, a week later, there’s no clear evidence anyone had a warrant. No accountability. No transparency. Just silence, or spin.

All of that is relatively new and is bad enough, and anyone not concerned about this is braindead.

But layered on top of that, this fits perfectly within the profile of everything we have been saying about Trump since the election and before. He is enacting a campaign of retribution against any and everyone he sees as being against him, even and including entire US states and especially blue cities. That is clearly what all of this is about.

So no, this isn't something we as a nation need to "work on", this is an assault on the constitution (4th amendment) by the Trump administration as part of a larger assault on our democratic principals.

Do you still not understand the issue here? Tell me I'm wrong about any of this.

it appears to me that Double_R is arguing this is new, and worthy of open armed rebellion.

Well, not that Double_R is arguing rebellion, but that 2nd amendment supporters and/or Chicago ought rebel and/or shoot federal agents.

I did not argue that. I am using the logic of the second amendment advocates to reach the conclusion of their logic and asking them to explain to me how this is not the exact scenario they've been fear mongering about for decades.

My position is that this country is flooded with guns, which is deeply dangerous and harmful to us as a nation. Their position is that that harm is necessary because we must be able to fight back against government tyranny. Well if this isn't tyranny, what is?

Imagine Obama having done this in Little Rock after declaring that he would make red states pay for the decisions of their Congressional leadership. They would have been forming their own para-military groups the next day and declaring secession.

What's different here from your other examples and is deeply concerning is that this was coordinated, deliberate, and unapologetic.

I don't think your union troops wasted a lot of time apologizing to federal insurrectionists who refused to obey federal laws regarding slavery during and after your civil war.

Leaning is correct, none of your attempted oversimplifications here are unprecedented.

I love love watchin you debate against the conservatards, an fighting the good fight. You r so smart and articulate and we get to watch u perform for free

I like it too. It's extremely educational, and I sincerely appreciate the time he put into collecting his thoughts.

I did not argue that. I am using the logic of the second amendment advocates to reach the conclusion of their logic and asking them to explain to me how this is not the exact scenario they've been fear mongering about for decades.

My position is that this country is flooded with guns, which is deeply dangerous and harmful to us as a nation. Their position is that that harm is necessary because we must be able to fight back against government tyranny. Well if this isn't tyranny, what is?

This is a good explanation for the rise of left wing terrorism in America. Thank you for explaining this.

I don't think your union troops wasted a lot of time apologizing to federal insurrectionists who refused to obey federal laws regarding slavery during and after your civil war.

Wow. So... slavery, that's our standard of governance. Great argument.

Leaning is correct, none of your attempted oversimplifications here are unprecedented.

He is correct in refuting a point I never made, and clarified further in the post you are responding to.

Do you not have anything better to do?

Wow. So... slavery, that's our standard of governance. Great argument.

I said or implied no such thing. I simply meant to say it's happened before in your American history where States revolted against Federal law and Federal enforcement. Whether you are talking about slavery laws or immigration laws, the actions taken by your federal government were predictable and not unprecedented. I believe the first occurrence was your whisky rebellion over taxes if I am not mistaken? Definitely not a first time. And the Federal government never apologizes for such things.

The post notes that Trump’s first wife, Ivana Trump, who was born in Czechoslovakia, became a U.S. citizen in 1988 after the birth of the three older children, and Melania Trump, who was born in Slovenia, obtained her U.S. citizenship in 2006, after Barron’s birth. Thus making Trump’s 4 children subject to his own disqualification of birthright citizenship.

Interesting, I suppose they had all better go through the legal process of naturalization then.

I don't find military aesthetic raids ideal, but I don't think they are uncommon in America.

2016

"Under the dark cover of early morning last week, Miami-Dade Police officers suited up in paramilitary garb: green helmets, dark gloves and bulletproof vests that seemingly had an infinite amount of pockets. Those pockets were filled with tactical equipment. The fleet of vehicles included armored Humvees, marked police cars and unassuming white vans that were filled to the brim with members of the Special Response Team."

https://www.southdadenewsleader.com/news/updated-operation-bad-manor-and-the-yellow-tape-gang/article_a42d4cc4-4496-11e6-bb3a-7fc3795b85df.html

"A raid like this one specifically would not have occurred under any other president in our lifetimes."

Double_R #29

I'm not talking old history, I'm talking recent history.

To my view, this type of raid has 'already occurred in my lifetime multiple times.

"coordinated, deliberate, and unapologetic." #47

I think police and such agencies tend to be coordinated and deliberate,

Unfortunately also often (Not always) unapologetic until forced by legal or social pressure.

I think raids are 'often clumsy and physically damaging or uncomfortable.

. . .

Maybe there weren't any warrants for the Chicago apartment, I'm not sure yet.

I think there 'should have been.

I think it will likely end up hurting ICE if they 'didn't have warrants.

"But layered on top of that, this fits perfectly within the profile of everything we have been saying about Trump since the election and before. He is enacting a campaign of retribution against any and everyone he sees as being against him, even and including entire US states and especially blue cities. That is clearly what all of this is about." #47

I don't know 'what Trumps plan and use of the national guard and ICE is, I still find it pretty confusing.

I suppose one can argue the national guard might be at hand to prevent riots quickly.

Maybe Trump thinks all the illegal immigrants are in blue cities and states.

Maybe Trump thinks he can deport all the illegal immigrants.

Maybe Trump is just trying to put on a show, to distract or to drum up support for Republican cause.

I don't know if Trump is planning on or has sent ICE and the national guard to any Red states or cities.

If it has only been Blue cities and states, I am not convinced it is 'revenge. Logically he might target Blue to drum up 'perception (Not truth) that Blue cities and states are lawless and the problem.

If it has only been Blue cities and states, maybe not revenge, maybe Trump just wants to avoid angering his base.

I do not think this is the 'new situation that Second Amendment supporters have been fearing.

As such no knock or quick knock raids have long been a problem.

I do not think it means second amendment supporters should rebel against the government.

This may have been error, if they had no warrant, or if none of those arrested are illegals or criminals.

This is NOT NEW to my view, raids have long been an issue.

Even warrant lacking raids, but whenever raids lack warrants, the law and the people push back. I am not worried.

Trump is a diplomatic ass, I have never denied.

But any para-military groups or declaring secession would not have been successful, would not have managed to garner enough support I think.

This is NOT NEW to my view, raids have long been an issue.

You ignored every point I made about why this one was different only so that you could continue to do exactly what I just described - you "found" similarities in order to claim others instances are similar. The Hitler/JD Vance analogy remains applicable and untouched.

You ignored every point I made about the 4th amendment, treating a purposeful and blatant disregard for the constitution as "business as usual, nothing to see here".

You excused every possibility that you yourself raised as to what this might have actually been about by couching each one as a 'maybe, but who knows?'.

In many ways, that last point is the most concerning. You clearly do not know anything about history - this is how authoritarianism grows, with people doing exactly what you're doing now.

I picked up on about 5 different "maybes" you listed:

1. Using ICE to stage a show of strength.
2. Targeting blue states for political gain.
3. Stoking fear for electoral reasons.
4. Lashing out in retribution.
5. Orchastrating this to distract from other failures.

Every single one of these on their own is disqualifying. If any other president had engaged in any of these, Congress would be writing articles of impeachment. But since all of these are legitimate possibilities, it's "Well who knows?". In other words you act as if the plausibility of multiple egregious possibilities makes itt better, not worse. That's absurd.

Sam Harris made a great point when he noted that if Trump were half as bad he would seem worse, cause at least then his awefulness would be recognizable. You are the poster child for this.

You talk about "police and such agencies" engaging in this kind of abuse as if that is any way on par with it coming from the federal government with the full backing of the president. It's not. We live in a country of 340 million people, of course you will be able to find examples of someone somewhere in some town or city abusing their power. In those instances, there are checks on their power. The only check on the federal government is us, and you're just sitting there pretending it's all fine. That's what makes this so infuriating.

This is kind of your MO though I have noticed. Nothing is a big deal, nothing is new, everything will be ok, somehow. You are that meme of the dog (or whatever it is) in the room on fire saying "this is fine".

Seems we disagree on a number of points, ah well.