Today: Immigrants. Tomorrow: You

Profiling doesn’t stay in one box. Once accepted, it spreads from race to politics to religion.

Profiling on beliefs could be the next dark turn in American history

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain because they were kidnapping our sailors off merchant ships on the high seas. The Royal Navy would stop American merchant ships, board them without permission, and test each sailor to see if they had a British accent. Any sailor who “sounded British” was assumed to be a British subject and immediately impressed into the British Royal Navy. More than two centuries later, our own Supreme Court has allowed a practice that looks very similar. The Supreme Court has given federal officers in Los Angeles the green light to stop and question people based on appearance, skin color, or accent. If they suspect the person to be an illegal immigrant, they are kidnapped on the spot, sent to a detention center, and deported without due process. What the majority in the Supreme Court calls “reasonable suspicion” is, in truth, profiling by another name.

Initially, a district judge in California blocked immigration officers from detaining people based on mere suspicion of race or language, but the Supreme Court has overruled them. Under the Trump Administration, the Justice Department pushed the issue to the Supreme Court. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court agreed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that immigration officers have broad authority under federal law to operate within 100 miles of the border, which includes Los Angeles. He argued that relying on factors like language, appearance, or location can reasonably inform an officer’s suspicion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned in dissent that this opened the door to widespread abuse and a breakdown of constitutional rights.

What does this mean in practice? Picture a man waiting for work outside a Home Depot, a woman washing cars at a car wash, or a family speaking Spanish in a park. Under the Court’s decision, each could be regarded as a suspect who can be forced to prove their right to be in the United States. In other words, the government doesn’t need to prove guilt; instead, these “suspects” must prove their innocence. Each would have to carry papers with them at all times. Surprisingly, even American citizens are often caught in this dragnet and face extreme harassment and government-sponsored kidnapping. When ordinary activities become grounds for suspicion, it’s easy to argue that freedom and liberty — the cornerstones of American democracy — are being denied.

The danger doesn’t end with immigrants. The problem with profiling is that it constantly expands. For example, consider that not all Mexicans or Latin Americans have brown skin or heavy accents. Some are light-skinned, having descended from French or German settlers. Enforcement agents may therefore push to broaden the net, moving from clear physical traits to weaker cues like clothing, neighborhoods, or even political leanings. Once the principle of profiling is accepted, the category of who counts as suspicious becomes a moving target.

It gets worse: what if profiling goes beyond immigration? Today, the political climate already includes rhetoric that demonizes Democrats. If that rhetoric turns into policy, could we end up in a future where being a Democrat is seen as inherently un-American? History shows us this is possible. In the past, political parties and movements have been banned in the United States during times of fear. If loyalty to a political party or belief becomes a test for belonging, then profiling shifts from skin color and accent to political belief. And if it can happen with politics, it can happen with religion as well. We saw a preview of this with the Muslim ban in Trump’s first term.

This situation is full of irony. The United States once found it so intolerable for its sailors to be judged by their accents that we went to war to defend their freedom. Yet now, our own government is reviving a practice that treats accent and appearance as evidence of suspicion—only this time, it’s happening on our own streets.

The Court’s order is temporary and procedural. It only remains in effect until the appeals court makes a decision. However, we all know that if the appeals court’s ruling isn’t favorable to the Trump Administration, their Justice Department will take it to the Supreme Court. And we already have a good idea of how they will rule. The main message is clear: profiling is acceptable if the government labels it “reasonable.” This is a dangerous standard because history shows how quickly suspicion can spread once that door is opened. Japanese Americans during World War II, political dissidents in the McCarthy era, and Muslim Americans after 9/11 all understand what it feels like when government power relies on profiling. Each of those moments left a scar on our democracy.

If America once went to war to stop the practice of judging loyalty by accent, why should we accept it now? This is not just about immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. It is about whether we are willing to let our government decide who belongs in America based on how they look, how they sound, or what they believe. Today, the victims are immigrants. Tomorrow, it could be any one of us.

Originally published on the Frontline Progressive, September 8, 2025