By Joe Rodriguez
By Joe Rodriguez
Joe Rodriguez is a San Benito resident, a local citizen watchdog, and a past San Benito Commission candidate.
I am old enough to remember that, as a young teenager still in junior high in the 1960s, my family and I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with the Border Patrol while migrating to the North (Michigan and Ohio) to work the fields harvesting strawberries, peaches, pickles, tomatoes, etc.
Our journey started with families packed into the back of one large truck covered with a tarp, while our minimal belongings (clothing, cooking utensils, etc.) were loaded into a second big truck. Some families drove their own cars in a convoy behind the trucks. Along the way, we were stopped at the Border Patrol station in Sarita, Texas, in Kenedy County.
Next, we would get stopped and checked again just north of Longview, TX, on Hwy 59, just before we reached Hope, Arkansas, where we would spend the night at a facility funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. It was part of a larger network of federally funded rest stops designed to serve farm workers and their families traveling north to harvest crops. It operated between March and December each year.
Just before arriving at our final destination, Berrien Springs, Michigan, we would again be met by the Border Patrol at our final checkpoint at the Indiana-Michigan border. Spending the summer in an all-white environment where the “Welcome Wagon” was not exactly waiting for us was quite an experience for me as a teenager.
We were not allowed to go into town except for grocery shopping on Saturday evenings. Going to the movie theatre was out of the question. Some businesses actually had signs saying, “No Mexicans allowed.” This was my first personal encounter with “racial discrimination.”
The border patrol agents would sometimes arrive unannounced at 6 a.m. at our small housing provided by the patrones. There was no knocking on the door; they would open the door and enter.
Fast forward to 2025, and those dark days have returned, or maybe they never left. On Monday, September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed ICE immigrant agents to continue using racial profiling to stop and detain suspected undocumented migrants.
The 6-3 ruling was made by the conservative majority without explanation via the shadow docket, blocking two federal judges’ rulings that limited federal agents’ ability to carry out “roving patrols” in the Los Angeles area, targeting people based on skin color, language, and other factors.
After this SCOTUS decision, U.S. Immigration can continue making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area based on the following factors or their combination: (1) presence at specific locations such as bus stops, car washes, day labor pickup sites, agricultural sites, restaurants, and similar places; (2) the type of work performed; (3) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (4) apparent race or ethnicity.
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.
Per the U.S. Supreme Court Judge Kavanaugh, a member of the Conservative majority: “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. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880–882; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273; United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 (1989). Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274: whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances (Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273).
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 specific locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English (Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “any number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence).
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,” Id., at 887.
What’s next, wearing a badge that states who you love, who you respect, whether you support Democracy or our Constitution? We used to think that only happened in Nazi Germany. It doesn’t even seem like showing papers will prevent them from detaining whoever they want.
Should we all, as Spanish-speaking citizens, start carrying birth certificates to verify our citizenship? Are we reaching a point where everyone with brown skin has to show “papers?” Is this decision going to turn some people into second-class citizens who must constantly carry documents to prove their citizenship?
So, according to these six conservative Supreme Court Justices, including race as one factor in the college admissions process is unconstitutional; however, using race as a reason to arrest and detain someone is completely acceptable.
Also, on June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Biden administration’s broad student debt relief plan was unlawful. However, they permitted Trump to dismantle the Department of Education, an agency that manages student loans for thousands of borrowers, runs programs to assist low-income children, and oversees funding for public schools.
For me personally, it’s Deja Vu all over again!!
Recent Comments