50 every weekend is an exaggeration, but more people were murdered in Chicago from 2001 to 2021 than American soldiers died during the Global War on Terror (6,593 died in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. 11,561 in Chicago).
This is something of a red herring though as somewhere around 75% of those murders are black-on-black, with only a minority involving Latinos. Chicago primarily attracts attention not because of its murder rate (#22 in the country vs. Detroit at #5), but instead due to the size of its population and the prevalence of violent music that has come out of the region.
Not to dispute your point, but the GWoT was shockingly low casualty for the Americans. Almost 10x as many Americans died in the Vietnam war (58,281 US military KIA), mostly between 1965 and 1971, peaking at 16,899 in '68 alone. There are lots of reasons for this, including the different styles and intensities of fighting, the soldiers used (GWoT was all volunteer after all), improvements in transport and trauma care, and the sheer technological lead that the US held. GWoT was really an example of punching down counterinsurgency, not a real "war" in a lot of ways.
My take the high murder rate among blacks in Chicago is due to Slavery, Jim Crow, followed by decades of racist therefor ineffective policing. That toxic racism is also what's motivating the ICE terrorizing.
My point is everyone has been silent about Chicago's violence for decades, and only now they seem to care because it's not Black people being targeted. It's straight up racism to not care about Black people's welfare but care only when it's other people being endangered.
When I lived in Chicago, no one was silent about Chicago's violence. It was widely acknowledged as one of the city's biggest problems and there was a ton of effort put into stopping it by the government and nonprofits, including grassroots initiatives.
To steelman what you're saying, it's true we lived with it so long that it came to seem normal in a way if you weren't personally affected. But "everyone has been silent" is just not true.
These demonstrations were nominally dedicated to protesting police brutality, not crime, and the policies they advocated for generally had an adverse impact on the crime rate in subsequent years.
When? Where? The instances listed in the article are not compelling.
Here’s an excerpt from the second article:
> According to Homeland Security deputy secretary Tricia McLaughlin, officers were trying to conduct a “targeted traffic stop” of a car registered to a “female illegal alien,” but the male driver “refused to pull the vehicle over.”
> “Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle,” according to McLaughlin.
> “They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare — recklessly endangering the children inside,” she said.
From the third article:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
[…]
> The woman who was arrested is from Colombia and does not have legal immigration status, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
If you have information about this issue that isn’t present in the articles linked, feel free to provide it.
ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency.
and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like:
"the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
&
"the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school"
even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
> before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from
Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit?
I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster.
> the building, did not have a warrant,
Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime.
> and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"
Per my last comment:
> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.
You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting.
> even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it.
I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare?
> Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?
I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.
There are multiple videos of ICE leaving an arrest in such a hurry they ram into a passing car that had the right of way. Unmarked cars with no lights follow normal traffic laws. They proceeded to yank the US citizen driving it out of her car and take her with them. She was detained without access to representation and then released without charges. That is unlawful arrest, and probably reckless endangerment. It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place. The fourth amendment says otherwise whatever other laws say. If they enter a place without a warrant seeking evidence, that is unlawful search and seizure. They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls. Some of them were not even near protests, they were just having fun. The training for those rounds explicitly calls out not to do that as it can be lethal. That is assault with a deadly weapon. If it could be proved they had that training, it might be argued as attempted second degree murder.
> It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place.
That was never claimed. What I said was that a warrant is not required when officers are pursuing the suspected perpetrator of a crime. You can feel however you want about it, but that is how the law works.
> They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls.
Are you relating this to the arrest that is being discussed in this thread? There was nothing in the linked articles that suggested this was anywhere near a protest, nor that tear gas was fired.
