Overnight on Tuesday, Sept. 30, federal agents from different agencies raided an apartment building on the South Side of Chicago, the nation's third-largest city by population. Armed federal agents in military fatigues busted down doors, pulling men, women and children — some of them allegedly naked — from their apartments, residents and witnesses told the Chicago Sun-Times.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said agents with Border Patrol, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested 37 people without legal immigration status, including some with criminal records. The spokesperson claimed the South Shore neighborhood is "a location known to be frequented by Tren de Aragua members and their associates."

"Due to the size of this operation, DHS law enforcement is continuing to gather more information on those arrested and will provide more information when available," the spokesperson said. "Federal law enforcement officers will not stand by and allow criminal activity flourish in our American neighborhoods."

all 75 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 1 year ago (26 children)

Crazy how they have all these resources to look tacticool with mothers and naked children. Can’t get these fuckers to go after real crime like this, but mothers and kids? “Lets fucking go!”.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Yeah what did a helicopter contribute to the operation here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Letting the piggies pretend to be badass movie heroes while brutalizing nonviolent minorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    And some or all of the agents are currently not going to receive their next paycheck if the government stays shut down.

    They are willing to do this for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Not for free. Government employees who are deemed essential continue to work through shutdowns and receive their back pay when the shutdown ends.

    They're still jackbooted thugs but they aren't doing it for free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    They only get their back pay if congress authorizes it. While that has happened during prior shutdowns, it does not mean they are guaranteed to be paid this time.

    They still count as working for free until they get their backpay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Like the current administration cares about the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    True. But. Why would the current administration choose to NOT pay them...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because they are greedy and stupid ? Why do you still trust laws in a country run by nazis who have made it clear that the law is what they say it is at the moment ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If robo-cops were a thing already I'd be with you, until then I don't see ICE losing their paychecks any time soon.

    And I never said I trust that they follow the law, but I trust that they want ICE paid

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 35 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Can’t get these fuckers to go after real crime

    Targeting the South Side of Chicago is deliberate, precisely because its the place where all the "criminals" live. This is part of the meta-narrative of all big cities being these festering hives of violence and robbery. It's the same justification Israelis have used to purge Gaza and the West Bank. Hell, its the justification the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, the Hinduvistas invading Kashmir, and the GRU along the Russian border have been using.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To be fair, parts of Chicago have major problems with crime and gang culture.

    We really shouldn't pretend that gangbangers haven't earned at least some of the criticism directed towards them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To be fair, parts of Chicago have major problems with crime and gang culture.

    That's been the historical line. But even the more violent parts of Chicago are only violent by volume. Per capita, they're at or below the national average.

    Chicago's also got a problem of over-policing, particularly in the wake of the 90s "Tough on Crime" bloating of the CPD staff and budget. More cops with a mandate to catch criminals will find more people to arrest for crimes. Even as crime rates fall, the per-capita population of cops only ever seems to rise. Because cops aren't equipped to treat the causes of crime, only to suppress the symptoms, you end up with neighborhoods where people are too terrified of the cops to leave their homes.

    That's before you get into Police Gangs (an epidemic in the LAPD and LASD and certainly not unknown in Chicago). White nationalists love to join the police, the sheriff's department, and the various FBI/National Guard/ICE/DEA whenever they can sneak in. And police are useful intermediaries for cartels and other criminal enterprises (and white collar rackets - debt collectors, unscrupulous landlords, insurance fraudsters) because they protect one another from indictment and prosecution.

    "Crime" and "Gang Culture" tend to be code words for "Black people trying to work together to make a living". By contrast, a police helicopter bombing of an apartment block or a series of BLM activists burned alive in their own cars, is totally under reported.

    If MLK was alive today, the police would have tagged him as a gang member by now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yeah, I'd love to see them try this on cartel. Jeeeeesus that's be world news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    They wouldn't try. These brave cops who dare not show their faces will only attack those who they know can't fight back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago*

    Not quite the same type of jackboot here, but nonetheless "Uvalde" is all we need to know about how heroism LARPers pick and choose their violence in the most vile ways.

    Guarantee if we ever see an armed response to one of these ICE raids, the LARPers will fall into chaos and shoot everywhere, likely killing a WHOLE lotta people by accident, probably including a lot of each other (all of which will be blamed on the targets of course).

    And you'd imagine if there were any of these hardened criminals among their targets like they claim, at least one of em would've tried to shoot their way out of deportation by now. Weird!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 183 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    When rounding up children to send to Concentration Camps, the name you can trust is U-Haul.

    Trust U-Haul with all your Concentration Camp needs.

    That name again is U-Haul.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    UHaul better stop renting to them or it might hurt their brand. When the mass exodus happens people will need a truck

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    How would U-Haul know prior to giving them the truck?

    Are we assuming the people not carrying identification while abducting children are being forthright about their purposes when renting the vehicle? Seems unlikely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (20 children)

    How would U-Haul know prior to giving them the truck? Are we assuming the people not carrying identification while abducting children are being forthright about their purposes when renting the vehicle? Seems unlikely.

    Found the guy with U-Haul in his investment portfolio.

    Based on your "will someone think of poor U-Haul" slant, in light of hauling children off to Concentration Camps, i feel a strong moral imperative to blast my messaging louder, and see what can be done in a coordinated manner, to inflict maximal financial harm to U-Haul.

    You've inspired me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I get why you’re outraged, but I don’t think your assumption that the other poster is shilling for u-haul is well founded. As far as I know (from the last time I rented a U-Haul years before this administration), they don’t ask you what you intend to use it for. It is a tool with an obvious purpose—moving your stuff from one location to another.

    They also make you sign paperwork saying that people will not ride in the back, so they had reasonable safety in mind within the intended purpose of the unit and the anticipated risk factors within that use case.

    It is a good point that they should probably change their policies to log the intended use now that they know their trucks have been used in this way, but it isn’t reasonable to think that they should have anticipated that their moving trucks would have been used by ICE before it happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I get why you’re outraged, but I don’t think your assumption that the other poster is shilling for u-haul is well founded. As far as I know (from the last time I rented a U-Haul years before this administration), they don’t ask you what you intend to use it for. It is a tool with an obvious purpose—moving your stuff from one location to another.They also make you sign paperwork saying that people will not ride in the back, so they had reasonable safety in mind within the intended purpose of the unit and the anticipated risk factors within that use case.It is a good point that they should probably change their policies to log the intended use now that they know their trucks have been used in this way, but it isn’t reasonable to think that they should have anticipated that their moving trucks would have been used by ICE before it happened.

    There's nothing that I enjoy more than seeing attempts at tone policing, and throwing an ice cold bucket of i don't give a fuck on it.

    Now I will absolutely lean into dragging U-Haul for complicity in the American Holocaust. Predominantly for their stepping up to provide material assistance for hauling children to Concentration Camps.

    Meanwhile, you will stand over there and stick berries up your nose while the fascists run wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Ignoring your insults towards me, I ask you this question:

    Was the fertilizer company responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing because their product was used in a way it wasn’t intended for? After the tragedy, improved monitoring systems were created to track people who were buying industrial amounts of fertilizer without a clear need for using it in agriculture, but before the bombing, they did not think it would be used in that way and there were no safeguards in place.

    In my opinion, that’s where we are with U-Haul. Their product has been used in a terrible way that it wasn’t designed for—what they do next will be the thing I judge them for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Isn't it disheartening to engage a conversation where the other party moves the goalposts at every opportunity while claiming moral superiority? They just invoked the Proud Boys as a precedent setting group as if that's something to be aspired to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They're not moving goal posts. They're repeatedly making the same point over several examples.

    It's not complicity when a customer uses your product outside the ToS. It was also suggested up the chain here that the person renting and picking up the vehicle may not be disclosing their employment nor the use in raids.

    If either of these are not the case, or if Uhaul takes no measures to prevent this in the future, then Uhaul is complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh I wasn't referring to WeirdGoesPro themselves. I replied to them because they had a similarly circular conversation with MushuChupacabra as I did.

    It's not complicity when a customer uses your product outside the ToS.

    I agree. The employment and purposes of the individual renting the trucks were unlikely to have been disclosed while the vehicle was being rented.

    ... if Uhaul takes no measures to prevent this in the future, then Uhaul is complicit.

    I think that falls more to complacency than complicity, but I see your point. As I've written in a few other comments here, I'm not sure what 'measures' could be implemented by any rental company to prevent undisclosed use of their vehicles.

    There are only two routes I can think of to effect this situation. Some reactionary method; barring the listed customer from future rentals if the service becomes aware of the misuse, maybe install dash cameras in some tamper resistant way. Or a preventative method; ending rentals entirely and pivot to a full service moving company.

    If you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it - it's why I asked the question in the first place, and so far haven't seen an answer to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    They wouldn't really have a way if preventing this from happening altogether. So you have to increase the risk to the lessee for bad behavior.

    Point of sale is the only place they ID the customer. At that point you determine whether the lease is to a legal entity (Gov/corp) or Private. If the trucks were contracted to DHS or a contractor then this is moot and fuck 'em. If they were contracted as a private lease to an agent concealing the purpose then a couple options could be:

    • imposing maximum fees associated with breach of ToS
    • Suing the individual for fraudulent use, possibly criminal, or damage to the brand, even if the lessee is immune.

    I'm unsure if Uhaul is franchised, but in that case there is less clarity in the options. Corporate could pressure them depending on contract language.

    End if the day, unless it is seen as an economic threat to the brand, nothing will likely be done.

    Note: i don't usually think that punitive action is useful but it's all these bastards know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Indeed. I'm sure there is already language in the terms against driving the vehicles with people in the cargo space. Breaking this could result in some penalty. If the company found, of course.

    Unfortunately, if they were to bundle up dozens of these individuals renting trucks on behalf of ICE and were then able to go after the agency itself for this practice of purposefully violating their TOS, the opposition is the government. I wouldn't put it past the current administration to nationalize U-Haul as punishment in such a situation.

    I agree about the punitive damages. There should be life long consequences for everyone involved with ICE.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago

    Ignoring your insults towards me, I ask you this question:Was the fertilizer company responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing because their product was used in a way it wasn’t intended for? After the tragedy, improved monitoring systems were created to track people who were buying industrial amounts of fertilizer without a clear need for using it in agriculture, but before the bombing, they did not think it would be used in that way and there were no safeguards in place.In my opinion, that’s where we are with U-Haul. Their product has been used in a terrible way that it wasn’t designed for—what they do next will be the thing I judge them for.

    Tl;dr: Please treat U-Haul gently, like a baby bird. They are completely innocent and helpless.

    Because the health and wellbeing of U-Haul is the most important thing to focus on right now.

    Nice work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That's a lot of extrapolation. I don't care about the company, I only asked a logistical question. I was thinking how they could have prevented this from happening. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible.

    Having rented a moving truck before, I've been asked the basic questions of expected mileage or if you're driving it out of town and whether you want additional insurance. My point was that there is no method to verify what the customer says about their purposes. Rentals get used for purposes other than house moving all the time and there's not really a way to stop it.

    I have no warmth for the largest moving company in North America, which is why I use a local option when possible, but I also won't attribute malice for what isn't possible for them to stop.

    It's entirely plausible this same thing is happening with rental trucks of Penske or small local places and it just hasn't made the news. Despite naming them, my question had nothing to do with U-Haul specifically, so coordinated action isn't particularly relevant unless you are advocating everyone buy their own moving truck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    That's a lot of extrapolation. I don't care about the company, I only asked a logistical question. I was thinking how they could have prevented this from happening. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible. Having rented a moving truck before, I've been asked the basic questions of expected mileage or if you're driving it out of town and whether you want additional insurance. My point was that there is no method to verify what the customer says about their purposes. Rentals get used for purposes other than house moving all the time and there's not really a way to stop it. I have no warmth for the largest moving company in North America, which is why I use a local option when possible, but I also won't attribute malice for what isn't possible for them to stop. It's entirely plausible this same thing is happening with rental trucks of Penske or small local places and it just hasn't made the news. Despite naming them, my question had nothing to do with U-Haul specifically, so coordinated action isn't particularly relevant unless you are advocating everyone buy their own moving truck.

    This is all just plea bargaining to claim complacency instead of complicity.

    I'll redouble my efforts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don't see how you think it's complicity. Has there been any evidence of U-Haul giving trucks en masse to ICE for the purpose of transporting abducted people?

    If you are of the belief that U-Haul is complicit, then you should have no trouble answering the question. How does any rental service prevent their vehicles from being used for anything other than the advertised purpose?

    Surely we won't be putting that responsibility on the minimum wage employee working the front desk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't see how you think it's complicity. Has there been any evidence of U-Haul giving trucks en masse to ICE for the purpose of transporting abducted people? If you are of the belief that U-Haul is complicit, then you should have no trouble answering the question. How does any rental service prevent their vehicles from being used for anything other than the advertised purpose? Surely we won't be putting that responsibility on the minimum wage employee working the front desk.

    We are simply expressing differences in our priorities and values.

    You are putting in extra work here to ensure that the good name of U-Haul remains unsullied.

    I am putting in words to discourage businesses from participating in a Holocaust.

    But please, go on and tell me more about the plight of U-Haul.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've expressly stated the issue isn't really about U-Haul. The reason U-Haul specifically is being named here is because that's the company named in the article. If it was Penske, even your top level comment would say Penske and not U-Haul.

    If someone used a charitable organization's logo-emblazoned lanyard to hang a dog from a tree, do you think it to be the fault of the nonprofit? There are no checks or balances to prevent that level of misuse. This has been my entire point that you continue to ignore in a misguided attempt to paint me as a corporate apologist.

    It's understandable that my initial comment may have been misinterpreted, but doubling down on this tunnel-vision viewpoint isn't.

    From what you've said, we do in fact share priorities and values. The bottom rungs of the hierarchy earning a pittance compared to the top should be criminal. Where we differ is my refusal to call any group bad because of something wholly out of their control. Nuance and context is important. So far you haven't attempted to explain how any rental company can stop fascists from using their equipment after it leaves the lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So far you haven't attempted to explain how any rental company can stop fascists from using their equipment after it leaves the lot.

    Ans so far, you've said sweet fuck all about the children that were hauled off in U-Haul equipment.

    But since you lack any sort of vision, l will tell you how I would handle ICE ratfucks using my equipment to commit crimes against humanity. And I would be prepared, and I would be aware of the possibility of ICE possibly trying to use my shit, based on precedence set by the Proud Boys:

    Attention Citizens of the United States of America: U-Haul stands in direct opposition to ICE attacks on the American way of life. If you witness any U-Haul equipment in use by ICE, please call us at 555-5555, and we will remotely disable the vehicles.

    When the regime falls, and everything is moving really fast, do everyone a favor, and get the fuck out of the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So... I think we're all on the same page that it's clearly unethical for the feds to be doing this to people. Taking people out of their homes in the night, even not fully dressed, that horrible. And to be clear, it's ICE doing that under Trump's orders.

    That said, what you wrote above, that all sounds pretty unhinged. I mean, u-haul is not doing this, they rent vehicles. You might as well be angry at Ford, for making the vehicles. You might as well get angry at Walmart or Amazon fire selling them zip ties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    So... I think we're all on the same page that it's clearly unethical for the feds to be doing this to people. Taking people out of their homes in the night, even not fully dressed, that horrible. And to be clear, it's ICE doing that under Trump's orders.That said, what you wrote above, that all sounds pretty unhinged. I mean, u-haul is not doing this, they rent vehicles. You might as well be angry at Ford, for making the vehicles. You might as well get angry at Walmart or Amazon fire selling them zip ties.

    It seems like your primary role here is to placate, and to encourage people to be concerned, but otherwise inert.

    Hand wringing won't bring down the regime.

    Fucking up their processes and being as disruptive as possible will.

    The fact remains that U-Haul is now known as a shipping company that delivers right wing extremists to peaceful protests, and one that whisks children off to be deported.

    Concentrate less on making me more docile, and more on inflicting financial harm on the complacent and complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    How?

    Literally, how can they possibly do that? How can you be certain the person you're renting to isn't a law enforcement officer? Background checks? Would it be fair to block these people from ever renting a moving van (like for when they're moving)? If they did bar law enforcement from using their vehicles, and a federal agency brings them up on charges for obstructing justice, how could they possibly fight that claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    “including some with criminal records”
    = a couple of them have old weed tickets or driving with an expired license tickets.
    they keep saying “criminal records” over and over, because it sounds so bad… but most of the “criminal records” are petty, lower misdemeanors… NOT a criminal record, but in their life they’ve had one tiny “crime”…
    went to court, got no jail time and paid the small fine….
    wording matters

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    The ICE Agent from last week who dropped his weapon, then pointed it without a clip. His response to why the man was being arrested was that "he's a criminal." Not that he's a suspect, or that there's a criminal warrant. Apparently, the police are now deciding who's guilty without trials.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wondering how long before we have our own Kristallnacht and Trump goes full Final Solution...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago*

    Rappelled from helicopters, Government efficiency at work.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    She said she witnessed agents dragging residents, including children — some naked or improperly clothed — out of the building and into U-Haul vans. Children were separated from their mothers, she said.

    What is the purpose of a U-Haul van? To move objects. The sub text to using U-Haul vans is to say that the people rounded up and detained on Trump up charges is that they are not human.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago
    [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    It sounds like they're training a paramilitary on women and children

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    They are literally just going door to door and ripping anyone and everyone out of their homes to see if they might be “illegal”.

    No one wants to do anything so I guess we’re fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    These guys just wanted and excuse to cosplay as special forces, but without having to put the effort you would normally need in the entry process

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So there's no chance they aren't grabbing US Citizens during this shit right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ICE speedruns abuse of power any%

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    These fucking losers should be fixing roads and bridges

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    "Yeah that's right, uh-huh, we're bad-ass tough guys! We're macho soldiers! We're not afraid of no naked children, no sir! We'll kick those naked childrens' asses!" *makes body builder poses* "We're so macho! I'm so hard right now!!1!"

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    They keep mentioning this "Trendy Arugula", but I don't see how salad preferences justify any of the shit they're pulling.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Meal Team 6 probably had to double up on the ropes.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Parkour!

    Real footage of ICE jumping from the helicopter

  • source