Racially Charged Language Among Immigration Agents
Body camera footage and text messages from immigration agents in Los Angeles reveal troubling evidence of racial profiling. Following a raid at a Home Depot in Hollywood last summer, agents used derogatory terms to describe Latinos, including terms like “tonk” and “wet,” as detailed in court filings seeking to halt discriminatory practices in immigration operations.
The footage captured an agent commenting on a suspect, stating, “There was a guy. He was definitely wet, and he was sitting in that minivan.” Text messages further clarified that this individual was being referenced as “Tonks, who sells food everywhere,” with the term allegedly originating from the sound made when an agent’s flashlight strikes a migrant’s head. The video included remarks such as, “Yeah, just plug it in where Tonks is, and she’ll pop right out.”
Evidence collected, including the body camera footage and recovered texts, was presented in a motion for a preliminary injunction by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), public defenders, and various advocacy groups. They argue for the cessation of a “continued campaign of unquestionably discriminatory detention suspensions” in California’s Central District.
Myra Hoasin, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, emphasized that linguistic analyses reveal the “racist sentiments that are driving the way immigration operations are currently being conducted.” The case raises concerns over the extent of available evidence, as Hoasin noted, “What we’ve seen is only a fraction, and there may be other records that could unveil even more troubling information.”
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies, has yet to respond to inquiries regarding the allegations. The evidence in question was expedited through a discovery process ordered by U.S. District Judge Maam Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, following a Supreme Court ruling that previously barred injunctions based on race, ethnicity, language, location, or employment.
In their June 2025 lawsuit, plaintiffs contended that the findings contradict the government’s claims. They assert that race was the primary factor in detaining individuals, even when it included U.S. citizens, as the motion states that these stops were neither brief nor inconspicuous. The plaintiffs seek to bar agents from relying on perceived Latino ethnicity for custodial stops, except in relation to known target descriptions.
Shifts in Immigration Operations Under Previous Administrations
Historically, during President Trump’s administration, ICE had targeted specific individuals for arrests based on individual investigations. However, recent motions indicate a shift in strategy, with an email from ICE’s headquarters in May 2025 ordering field offices to initiate mass arrests of collateral targets, which included individuals not specifically under investigation. This shift suggests a broader pattern of discriminatory practices.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs assert that the government has adopted a practice of “cruising patrols,” where agents patrol neighborhoods without specific targets in mind. This method is evident in the motion’s documentation, where agents discussed making judgments based on demographics at various locations.
After Judge Frimpong granted a temporary restraining order last year, the government expressed concerns that these operations relied on “intelligence.” However, the motion argues that the purported intelligence was often fabricated, designed to legitimize actions taken at public venues where the agency had already decided to conduct operations.
The motion further details how the government dispatched intelligence teams to establish a presence at hardware stores and car washes to randomly “inspect” potential illegal immigrants. According to the complaint, agents routinely secured days to raid these identified “targets,” irrespective of their presence, which led to numerous arrests of individuals who were not the intended targets.
Concerning Communications Among Agents
The court filings reveal shocking instances of immigration officials using racial slurs, including “tonk.” A 2019 guidance from CBP stated that the term “tonk” was derogatory and inappropriate. Additionally, a text chain referred to a “snatch and grab” approach, showcasing a troubling mindset among some agents regarding their operational methods.
In a recent court hearing, the government’s failure to produce mobile phones used during operations came under scrutiny. Despite over 800 officers admitting to using personal devices for work-related communications, the Justice Department confirmed that no such phones had been documented, raising questions about the potential volume of derogatory messages that could exist.
As the case unfolds, the plaintiffs aim to highlight the need for transparency in immigration enforcement practices and accountability for personnel involved. Their arguments underscore a growing call for reform to prevent racial profiling and ensure that immigration policies are executed fairly and without bias.
