Federal Lawsuit Alleges Racial Profiling and Use of Slurs by Immigration Agents in Los Angeles Raids

Newly unsealed court records from *Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem*, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other groups, allege that federal immigration agents used racial slurs during enforcement operations in Los Angeles last year. The evidence includes body-camera footage, text messages, and sworn testimony obtained through a court order.

Agents referred to individuals as "wet" and "tonks," terms described in the lawsuit as derogatory toward migrants and Latinos. In one video, an agent said, *"There was a guy, I’m pretty sure he’s wet, he was just sitting in that minivan."* Text messages also included phrases like *"tonks everywhere selling food"* and *"Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks and we’ll jump out."* The term "tonks" reportedly originates from the sound of a flashlight striking someone’s head. In 2019, U.S. Customs and Border Protection discouraged its use, calling it offensive.

A deposition from an agent described the "suspicious appearance" they targeted as an *"older Hispanic male."* Plaintiffs argue this demonstrates agents relied on racial profiling rather than individualized suspicion. The lawsuit claims these practices violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, leading to the detention of U.S. citizens.

The lawsuit also cites a May 2025 directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instructing agents to increase arrests of "collaterals"—people encountered during operations who were not the original targets. The ACLU contends this strategy was directed by agency leadership, not isolated misconduct. Some plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens, report being stopped multiple times by agents. The lawsuit further alleges that ICE recruitment materials contained imagery and messaging later described by experts as white nationalist.

Most agents involved in the raids have not complied with a court order to turn over personal cell phones for forensic review. Of approximately 1,400 Border Patrol agents involved in the operations, over half reported using personal devices. Only 88 volunteered to submit their phones, and none have been processed yet. Government lawyers stated they are imaging three government-issued phones every two weeks, estimating it could take nearly four years to complete the review. The court is considering whether to hold the federal government in contempt for failing to produce evidence.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Border Patrol, has not responded to requests for comment. The case remains ongoing as civil rights groups seek a preliminary injunction to block what they describe as discriminatory enforcement practices.

Original Sources/Tags: calmatters.org, latimes.com, calmatters.org, paloaltoonline.com, joemygod.com, theguardian.com, huffpost.com, hsjchronicle.com, (ice), (aclu), (deposition)

This article provides almost no actionable help to a normal reader. It describes a lawsuit involving racial slurs, discriminatory stops, and delayed compliance with a court order, but it does not give clear steps, choices, or tools a person can use. The only resource mentioned is the Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case, but the article does not explain how someone might track the case, report similar incidents, or seek legal help if they believe they were targeted. There is no guidance on what to do if stopped by immigration agents, how to document interactions, or where to file complaints. The mention of a court order for cell phone evidence is framed as a procedural detail rather than a practical resource for affected individuals.

The educational depth is shallow. The article explains that agents used racial slurs and targeted people based on appearance, but it does not clarify how racial profiling works in practice, how to recognize it, or why it violates constitutional protections. It mentions terms like "reasonable suspicion" and "unreasonable searches and seizures" without explaining what these mean or how they apply to everyday encounters. The numbers—1,400 agents, 88 devices, a four-year delay—are presented without context, so readers cannot judge the scale of the problem or compare it to other cases. The article does not teach how to evaluate legal outcomes, assess the credibility of law enforcement practices, or understand the role of agency leadership in systemic issues.

Personal relevance is limited for most readers. The case affects individuals who were stopped or targeted in Los Angeles, but the article does not explain how to identify if someone was a victim of these practices or what steps they might take to seek redress. For others, the relevance is indirect: it highlights risks in interactions with immigration enforcement but does not connect those risks to practical decisions. The article does not address whether these practices are isolated or widespread, leaving readers uncertain about their own safety in similar situations.

The public service function is weak. The article reports on a lawsuit and agency misconduct but does not provide warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. It does not help the public act responsibly in encounters with law enforcement or understand how to avoid discriminatory stops. Instead, it focuses on the details of the case—slurs, delays, and legal arguments—without offering tools to interpret or respond to such events. The mention of a court order is framed as a procedural failure rather than a resource for victims.

Practical advice is absent. The article describes the problem but does not give readers steps to protect themselves. There is no guidance on how to document interactions with law enforcement, verify the identity of agents, or report suspected misconduct. The closest it comes to advice is noting that some plaintiffs were U.S. citizens stopped multiple times, which is not actionable for most people. It does not explain how to assess whether a stop is lawful or how to respond if targeted.

The long-term impact is negligible. The article focuses on a single case and does not help readers plan ahead, improve safety habits, or avoid future risks. It does not discuss how to evaluate law enforcement practices, recognize red flags in interactions, or understand legal protections available to individuals. The information is tied to a specific lawsuit and offers no lasting benefit beyond awareness of the event itself.

Emotionally, the article leans toward alarm without resolution. It describes racial slurs, discriminatory stops, and delayed justice, which can create a sense of injustice or helplessness. However, it does not provide clarity or constructive thinking about how individuals can respond to or protect themselves from such situations. While it mentions that some plaintiffs were U.S. citizens stopped multiple times, it does not explain why this matters or what it means for others. The tone emphasizes controversy without offering solutions, which may leave readers feeling powerless rather than informed.

The language is not overtly clickbait, but it does dramatize elements of the story. Phrases like "turn the creativity knob up to 11" and references to white nationalist messaging add emotional weight without substance. The focus on slurs and delays prioritizes intrigue over education, which can distract from the core issue of discriminatory practices and their impact on communities.

The article misses several opportunities to teach. It could have explained how racial profiling operates, how to document interactions with law enforcement safely, or how to report suspected misconduct. It could have provided examples of red flags in law enforcement stops, such as targeting based on appearance or language. It could have discussed the role of body cameras, how to request footage, or how to file complaints with oversight agencies. Instead, it presents facts without helping readers apply them.

To add real value, here are practical steps anyone can take to protect themselves during interactions with law enforcement:

If you are stopped by law enforcement, stay calm and keep your hands visible. Do not make sudden movements or reach for anything without explaining what you are doing. You have the right to remain silent, and you can politely say, "I wish to remain silent." If you are not under arrest, you have the right to ask if you are free to leave. If the answer is yes, you can walk away calmly.

If you believe you are being targeted unfairly, try to remember details about the encounter. Note the time, location, and appearance of the officers involved. If possible, write down what was said and done as soon as it is safe to do so. This information can be useful if you decide to file a complaint later.

You have the right to record interactions with law enforcement in public spaces, as long as you do not interfere with their duties. If an officer tells you to stop recording, politely say, "I am not interfering with your work." However, be aware that laws about recording vary by state, so familiarize yourself with local regulations.

If you feel your rights have been violated, you can file a complaint with the agency involved. Most law enforcement agencies have internal affairs divisions or civilian oversight boards. You can also contact organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union or local legal aid groups for assistance. Keep copies of any complaints you file and any responses you receive.

Educate yourself about your rights. Understand the difference between a consensual encounter, a detention, and an arrest. Know what constitutes reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This knowledge can help you assess whether an interaction is lawful and how to respond appropriately.

If you witness someone else being stopped or questioned by law enforcement, observe from a safe distance and offer to serve as a witness if needed. You can also record the interaction if it occurs in a public space. However, do not interfere or put yourself at risk.

When evaluating news about law enforcement practices, look for consistent details across multiple sources before forming an opinion. Compare the information to what you already know about the topic. If a story seems one-sided or lacks context, seek out additional perspectives. Be skeptical of claims that seem designed to provoke fear or urgency, as these are often used manipulate reactions.

Finally, build a support network. Know who you can contact for help if you or someone you know is targeted by law enforcement unfairly. This could include friends, family, community organizations, or legal professionals. Having a plan in place can make it easier to respond quickly and effectively in stressful situations.

The text says "terms considered derogatory toward migrants and Latinos." This hides who considers the terms derogatory. It makes it sound like everyone agrees. The words help the lawsuit by making the slurs seem worse than they might be. It does not say if some people use the words without bad intent.

The text says "the suspicious appearance they looked for was 'Older Hispanic male.'" This makes it sound like the agent said it was a rule. It hides if other agents did the same. The words help the lawsuit by making the bias seem official. It does not say if the agent acted alone.

The text says "the lawsuit claims these practices violated constitutional protections." The word "claims" makes it sound like an opinion. It hides that courts have not decided yet. The words help the ACLU by making the claim seem strong. It does not say if the claim is proven.

The text says "Most agents involved in the Los Angeles raids have not turned over their cell phones despite a court order." This makes the agents look bad. It hides if some agents tried to follow the order. The words help the lawsuit by making the agents seem guilty. It does not say why the phones are not turned in.

The text says "the lawsuit also alleges ICE expanded its field teams partly through recruitment ads that used white nationalist messaging." The word "alleges" makes it sound like a guess, not a fact. It hides if the ads were really white nationalist. The words help the ACLU by making ICE look bad. It does not say if the ads were checked.

The text says "Some plaintiffs, including U.S citizens, report being stopped multiple times." This makes the stops sound unfair. It hides if the stops had good reasons. The words help the plaintiffs by making the agents seem mean. It does not say what the reasons were.

The text says "the Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded to requests for comment." This makes DHS look silent or guilty. It hides if DHS plans to respond later. The words help the lawsuit by making DHS seem uncaring. It does not say if DHS is working on a response.

The text uses passive voice in "Only 88 volunteered to submit their devices for forensic imaging." This hides who asked for the devices. It makes it sound like the agents chose not to help. The words hide that a court ordered it. It does not say if the agents were told clearly.

The text picks facts that help the lawsuit. It says slurs were used but does not say if most agents did not use them at all. It talks about stops but does not say if some stops were legal. The words make the agents look mostly bad. It leaves out facts that might help them.

The text changes what "collaterals" means. It says the directive told agents to arrest more "collaterals" and calls them "people encountered during operations who weren’t original targets." This makes it sound like innocent people. It hides that "collaterals" might be people who broke laws too. The words help the ACLU by making arrests seem unfair.

The text says "'tonks' reportedly comes from flashlight hitting a migrant’s head." The word "reportedly" hides who said it. It makes the slur sound worse. The words help the story by making the term seem violent. It does not say if this is the only meaning.

The text orders facts to make the agents look bad first. It starts with slurs, then stops, then slow phone checks. This makes readers think the agents are guilty before they hear all facts. The order helps the ACLU by making anger grow fast. It does not start with facts that might help the agents.

The text conveys a range of emotions, primarily negative, to shape the reader’s perception of the events and guide their reaction toward outrage, concern, and distrust of federal immigration agencies. The strongest emotion present is **anger**, which appears repeatedly through descriptions of derogatory language, discriminatory practices, and institutional failures. Words like "racial slurs," "derogatory," "offensive," and "white nationalist messaging" carry heavy emotional weight, framing the agents’ behavior as morally unacceptable. The phrase "turn the creativity knob up to 11" adds a sarcastic, almost mocking tone, suggesting that leadership encouraged reckless or unethical behavior rather than reining it in. This anger is amplified by the revelation that agents targeted people based on race, using terms like "Older Hispanic male" as a justification for stops, which directly challenges notions of fairness and justice. The purpose of this anger is to provoke a strong reaction against the agencies involved, making the reader more likely to view their actions as systemic and intentional rather than isolated incidents.

A secondary but equally important emotion is **fear**, which emerges through details about the scope and persistence of the problem. The text describes how U.S. citizens were swept up in these operations, stopped multiple times, and subjected to discriminatory treatment. This creates a sense of vulnerability, suggesting that anyone who fits a certain profile—regardless of their legal status—could be targeted. The mention of a four-year delay in processing cell phone evidence, along with the fact that most agents have not complied with a court order despite over half using personal phones, reinforces this fear by implying that accountability is distant or even impossible. The phrase "none have been processed yet" and the slow pace of imaging government phones (just three every two weeks) make the problem feel insurmountable, leaving the reader with little hope for immediate resolution. This fear is not just about the past but about the future, as it suggests these practices could continue unchecked.

Another key emotion is **disgust**, which surfaces through the explicit descriptions of the slurs and their origins. The term "tonks" is explained as coming from "the sound of a flashlight hitting a migrant’s head," a detail that evokes visceral discomfort. The word "wet" is similarly framed as dehumanizing, reducing individuals to a single, degrading characteristic. These descriptions are not neutral; they are designed to make the reader recoil at the language and, by extension, the people who use it. The mention of a 2019 guidance from Customs and Border Protection acknowledging the offensiveness of "tonks" further deepens this disgust by showing that the agency was aware of the problem but failed to stop it. The purpose of this emotion is to create moral distance between the reader and the agents, making it harder to sympathize with or excuse their behavior.

The text also employs **frustration** and **helplessness**, particularly in the sections detailing the legal and bureaucratic obstacles to accountability. The slow pace of compliance with the court order, the low number of devices submitted for imaging, and the lack of response from the Department of Homeland Security all contribute to a sense that the system is broken or deliberately obstructive. The phrase "only 88 volunteered to submit their devices" subtly shifts blame onto the agents, implying they are actively resisting justice rather than facing logistical hurdles. This frustration is compounded by the fact that the lawsuit’s claims remain unproven in court, yet the text presents them as if they are already established facts. The purpose of this emotion is to make the reader feel that the fight for justice is uphill and that the agencies involved are not acting in good faith.

To persuade the reader, the writer uses several rhetorical tools that amplify these emotions. **Repetition** is one of the most effective, particularly in the focus on derogatory terms and discriminatory practices. By repeatedly mentioning "racial slurs," "derogatory," "offensive," and "white nationalist messaging," the text reinforces the idea that these behaviors are widespread and systemic. **Contrast** is another tool, such as juxtaposing the agents’ language with the 2019 guidance that called "tonks" inappropriate, highlighting the gap between policy and practice. **Hyperbole** appears in phrases like "turn the creativity knob up to 11," which exaggerates the recklessness of the directive to make it sound more extreme. **Personalization** also plays a role, as the inclusion of specific examples—like the agent recorded on body camera or the text message about "plugging in" to target people—makes the issue feel immediate and real rather than abstract.

The emotional impact is further strengthened by the **order of information**. The text begins with shocking details—the use of racial slurs and the body camera recording—to immediately grab the reader’s attention and establish a tone of moral outrage before moving into broader systemic issues. This structure ensures that the reader’s initial reaction is one of anger or disgust, which then colors how they interpret the rest of the information about delays, court orders, and recruitment practices. By the time the reader reaches the slower, more procedural details about cell phone evidence, they are already primed to view those delays as further evidence of wrongdoing rather than neutral bureaucratic hurdles.

Overall, the emotions in the text are carefully calibrated to guide the reader toward a specific conclusion: that the agencies involved are engaged in systemic, intentional discrimination and are actively resisting accountability. The anger, fear, disgust, and frustration work together to create a sense of urgency, making the reader more likely to support the lawsuit, demand reforms, or view immigration enforcement with skepticism. The absence of counterarguments or neutral perspectives ensures that the emotional narrative remains unchallenged, reinforcing the idea that the problem is both severe and unaddressed.