[pchristensen]

This took longer to cut and paste than it did to find on Google.

Arresting and detaining citizens based only on race/language: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/10/scotus-analysis-...

Rhetoric from Donald Trump: - https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-calls-de... - https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-domestic-ne...

Rhetoric from Stephen Miller: https://en.as.com/latest_news/he-can-dish-it-out-but-he-cant...

[zahlman]

The primary WBEZ source editorialized, and Slate's analysis took it further, such that your one-sentence summary ends up factually incorrect. The direct quote offered by WBEZ:

> “You know, there’s many different factors that go into something like that,” Bovino said. “It would be agent experience, intelligence that indicates there’s illegal aliens in a particular place or location.

> “Then, obviously, the particular characteristics of an individual, how they look. How do they look compared to, say, you?” he said to the reporter, a tall, middle-aged man of Anglo descent.

I disagree with such profiling, generally speaking, but as an objective matter of fact it is not being done "only on race/language". Also, it appears that these "Kavanaugh stops" involve possibly being taken in for questioning, but not any extended detainment.

Further, they did get a 6-3 SCOTUS decision permitting it — a decision that underscores that other factors are being used, not just "race/language". Specifically: "presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like" and "the type of work one does". This is affirmed later: "Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future."

If there is a serious problem, it will end in widespread lawsuits from legal immigrants unjustly detained, or on their behalf. If Fourth Amendment rights are being violated, the system allows for justice to be done. I am not denying this possibility. But as the concurrence notes (omitting references to precedent):

> To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States... a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard... [that] depends on the totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs... that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of [them]... come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors.

Someone else ITT proposed to me that ICE can't be held to account because the people in question "don't get court cases". Thanks for highlighting that they do, in fact.

Slate claims that Kavanaugh's "reasoning crumbled upon scrutiny", but there is nothing official about this — they're just linking some law professor's opinion on Substack. Slate doesn't do a great job of objective journalism in my experience; they routinely present opinion as fact like this.

The "Rhetoric from Trump" names two specific individuals as potentially funding terror groups, who are also known to fund the Democratic party. This is not the same as calling Democrats terrorists. Miller's rhetoric is precisely an example in 'the sense that there equally is rhetoric about "how republicans are fascists"' that I mentioned. It's him mouthing off on Hannity, not in an official government capacity. And the article doesn't even concretely show what it claims to be showing. It merely alludes to Hannity and Miller "... trying to paint the picture that all political violence occurring in the United States is the result of radical left-wingers incited by Democrats." Which again is not applying the label to Democrats broadly. The only hard evidence provided is linking to a tweet that has screencaps of other tweets from Miller — which are from during Biden's administration.