And Cultural Marxists have come to sadly realize there is no Constitutional or legal objection to racial profiling. This writer is glad to be validated by Cultural Marxists; perhaps Denvir read my monograph on racial profiling. [Racial Profiling is Constitutional, Legal, and Effective—That’s Why The Obama Regime Hates It, Federale, VDare, February 14, 2015] Though I am at a loss for words as to why it took them so long.
Amid nationwide protests against police killing black people, these days law enforcement officials are eager to insist that they do not condone racial bias. But while the Obama administration has taken the lead in cracking down on local abuses, it allows FBI agents and border officials broad leeway to profile based on race, religion and national origin when it comes to recruiting informants and policing arrivals.
[Crossing The Line: Yes, Border Officials And The FBI Can — And Do — Rely On Racial Profiling, Daniel Denvir, Slate, October 11, 2016]
Curiously, Denvir emphasizes again and again that the FBI can only use it for recruiting informants, as if there are any Constitutional prohibitions on how any law enforcement agency decides on whom to recruit. It also misses the fact that even after Eric "My People" Holder rewrote the alleged prohibition on profiling, all investigations regarding national security were authorized to use the already legal and Constitutional tactic of profiling.
Now, the rage against profiling is itself a lie, as the Cultural Marxists are claiming not that law enforcement is legitimately using race as an investigative tool, e.g. who to target for initial investigation or in preventative activities, but that law enforcement is arresting and prosecuting blacks because they are blacks. Note the difference. Profiling as an investigative tool, and profiling as to who will be arrested and prosecuted. The legitimate use of profiling is to find the criminal, generally the perpetrator of a crime that the police do not know has been specifically committed, rather than chose the criminal to arrest and prosecute, and usually the allegation includes an innocent black, as in he was just sitting there reading a book and the police arrested him for nothing.
The first purpose of profiling obviously ends in a prosecution of a black criminal, but only because the facts supported the initial investigative stop that then developed evidence of a crime, as opposed to stopping a black man because the officer wants to arrest him, then lying about any evidence of a crime, because the police are only stopping innocent black men who dindu nuffin.
This all first came to a head in Los Angeles where the so-called Driving While Black movement in the 1990s was started, at the height of the crack wars in South Central LA. In this case law enforcement agencies, specifically the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department wisely sought to stop drug dealing, drive-by shootings, and general law in South-Central, Compton, and other black neighborhoods by aggressively stopping suspicious blacks, mainly young men in cars at night.
Now, most Federal law enforcement don't do profiling based on race. Most Federal law enforcement is investigative, meaning a suspect or group of suspects has already been identified. However, on the border, dealing with illegal immigration and drug smuggling, profiling comes naturally. Most crimes related to immigration are done by discrete groups as Eric Holder mentions, and that discrete group is always identifiable by race, ethnicity, or national origin; to wit mainly Hispanic, Mexican, and non-white. The same goes for drug smuggling, mostly non-white, Hispanic, and Mexican. Of course there are variations, but that is mostly about which passport the non-white Hispanic has, e.g. American, Mexican, Honduran, Salvadoran, etc.
And by omission, Denvir admits that any prohibition on profiling must be by executive order, e.g. there is no law or Constitutional prohibition for the criminal lobby to take to the courts:
“Unfortunately, rather than make a clear ban on racial profiling without loopholes, the 2014 guidance — while it expanded the types of groups that could no longer be profiled in a positive way — it actually retained the loopholes albeit with much more complex language which in my experience,” German said. “Having a rule that takes pages and pages and paragraphs to explain what it prohibits and what it allows is only going to create more error and abuse.”
If you need Eric Holder to "...make a clear ban on racial profiling..." then you don't have a legal or Constitutional basis for a ban. Congress has not prohibited it, nor has the Court said the Constitution bans it.
But the most telling argument is that if there are exceptions to any prohibition on racial profiling, then why should there be any prohibitions on racial profiling at all? One would have less error and abuse by just allowing all profiling when it comes to investigative stops, as investigatory stops are by their very nature limited in duration. They are in effect, no harm, no foul territory. One may feel indignant that one was stopped, but if you are innocent, it is of no import.
Denvir understands the contradiction, but won't address the underlying problem that he and this writer exposed, the prohibition on profiling is not legal or Constitutional, but administrative, and, more importantly, the effectiveness of profiling or the need for profiling based on the fact that inner city crime is a black phenomenon and border crime is a Hispanic phenomenon.