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.