Arguments Against Racial Profiling

Since the fall of man, human nature is innately evil, and within the hearts of many, prejudice prevails. This learned characteristic has increasingly developed throughout the course of history and remains an imminent issue today, especially because America has allowed people of foreign nations to become a part of the homeland. As a result of the ongoing debate about racial discrimination in the twenty-first century, the media has dedicated a large portion of coverage to the issue, influencing both sides. Essentially, racial profiling is unlawful because it strikes fear into the lives of a specific race, creates an unprecedented distrust in government officials, and although some claim terrorism is on the decline because of racial profiling, it ultimately does not result in the broad termination of terrorists.
In past decades, ethnic minorities have suffered from the results of racial profiling. One prime example occurred after the Japanese government bombed Pearl Harbor. Japanese Americans throughout the United States were being sent to internment
camps for being assumed threats to the nation. Although many were loyal to the government and had proper citizenship, the attack resulted in a negative stereotype toward Japanese people. Another instance of racial profiling took place on September 11, 2001 when Islamic terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center. Unified as a nation, many Americans held a strong anti-Islamic view, a view which has carried over into the new era. And in recent years, newly developed opinions about Hispanics and African Americans constitute a large portion of racial profiling cases today. While some people consider spiders or heights to be their greatest fear, others have worries that penetrate to the bone.
Latinos and Hispanics in the states are currently living in fear of their lives and futures; furthermore, they wonder whether or not their children will live in a land of opportunity or be forced to return to the ways of the past. With the newly elected president, Donald Trump, assuming office in 2017, undocumented citizens are especially on edge due to a former campaign promise he made to deport illegal immigrants. In addition, African American traffic stops have escalated in greater proportions, and police are sometimes caught violating the fourth amendment. Searching a person’s car solely based on the driver’s race is not “probable cause” and is not protected under the constitution; therefore, African American’s frequently hesitate to protest as policemen have become more aggressive in
force. Along similar lines, racial profiling has revealed the government’s hypocrisy in providing equal protection under the law, causing minorities to lose faith in American officials. Despite a decision made by the Supreme Court that declared racial profiling as a violation of the fourteenth amendment, other programs have implemented contradicting laws. One example of an indecisive government is the struggle of law enforcement to determine what procedures to take to fight the war on drugs. Just because a Hispanic man is crossing the border doesn’t mean he is guilty of transporting marijuana into the United States. Because conflicting laws are in place, the decision to interrogate or pardon is often left up to police discretion and later ends up in the media. Other evidence can be traced to bias in the criminal punishment system. Evidence obtained by the New York Police Department found that white males who commit a crime, such as violating the speed limit, might be pardoned with a warning; on the other hand, a black man committing the same offense has a “29 percent greater chance” of facing jail time while a Hispanic man has a “32 percent increased chance. Such findings attest to the government’s failure to enforce certain laws consistently which ultimately hinders the trust of minorities in the government’s promises. Enduringly, racial profiling provides a promising platform for some, yet for others, it’s intolerable. While many people consider incriminating minorities as an acceptable method to eliminate terrorism, the outcome results in a violation of privacy found in the constitution. Overall, little to no terrorists are found. According to Chanin, Operation Front Line is one of many programs whose attempts to catch terrorists through profiling have failed. As a result of government interference in one’s personal life, groups have formed in order to counteract such mistreatment, thus placing the nation in a bind. Movements such as Black Lives Matter are formed by minority groups to end racial profiling. The protests are typically non-violent; they contain a sea of representation. In retrospect, participants in these protest groups aren’t the people imposing a threat to the government, they are average Americans fighting for their rights. Terrorists are people who live to harm others, and those are the people police officers and the White House should be shifting their focus toward. As America becomes a country of greater diversity, the linkage of nativism from the past is likely to carry over into the future, especially if the ever-growing trend continues. Unless the nation decides as a whole to lay down pride and forsake alleged biases held toward certain racial groups, issues may never be resolved, and hostility has the potential to spread throughout the country like a wildfire.