Since last year, immigration agents have conducted a series of large-scale enforcement operations in cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis. These sweeps, part of a broader campaign to increase deportations under the previous administration, have drawn scrutiny amid allegations of racial profiling and the use of derogatory language by federal officers.
Court filings and evidence emerging from ongoing lawsuits reveal that some agents repeatedly used ethnic slurs when describing those targeted. Terms such as "tonks," a longstanding derogatory word aimed at Mexican immigrants, and "wet," shorthand for "wetback," were documented in body-camera footage and internal communications. In addition, agents reportedly referred to suspicious individuals by ethnic characteristics, such as "older Hispanic males," suggesting a focus on Latino communities.
Civil rights groups argue that these practices reflect widespread racial profiling that goes beyond legal limits. Activists and lawyers involved in the cases say that immigration agents have routinely stopped, questioned, and detained people primarily based on skin color, perceived ethnicity, accents, and appearance rather than individualized suspicion. This approach, they contend, has resulted in the wrongful targeting of U.S. citizens, with several alleging officers refused to accept valid identification such as passports or driver's licenses. Some encounters escalated to the use of force, including Taser deployments, handcuffing, and prolonged detentions, despite the individuals' claims of citizenship.
These mass operations often involved roving teams in unmarked vehicles targeting Latino neighborhoods and workplaces such as carwashes, construction sites, and retail parking lots. According to court documents, agents worked under intense pressure to meet increased arrest quotas, which briefly reached up to 3,000 daily arrests nationwide. This shift reportedly moved enforcement from individualized investigations to broad "street sweeps," raising concerns about the reliance on racial and ethnic profiling as a primary tactic.
Government attorneys maintain that immigration enforcement remains lawful and targeted. They acknowledge isolated instances of inappropriate language but deny the existence of agency-wide policies endorsing racial profiling. Officials emphasize the broad authority agents possess to briefly stop individuals suspected of unauthorized presence in the country and reject allegations that race or ethnicity is the basis for enforcement actions. A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman described the accusations as "disgusting, reckless, and categorically false," stressing that enforcement targets unauthorized immigrants, not individuals based on their appearance.
The legal backdrop to the debate includes a 1975 Supreme Court ruling that permits race or ethnicity to be one factor—but not the sole factor—in immigration stops. Recent court decisions and Supreme Court involvement, including a provisional order by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have raised questions about whether longstanding limits on racial profiling in immigration enforcement still apply. Scholars and legal experts note that the current wave of cases is testing those boundaries and may signal a shift in how courts interpret constitutional protections against racial discrimination.
Legal experts caution that the emergence of new evidence—such as body-camera footage showing agents bypassing white individuals while detaining Latino men, and agents using racial slurs—could influence how these cases are ultimately resolved. With multiple lawsuits progressing through lower courts and the possibility of renewed Supreme Court scrutiny, the issue of whether current immigration enforcement practices cross constitutional lines remains an open and contentious question.