Adnan R. Khan's Close Encounters With US Immigrants

Racial profiling can be defined as targeting specific individuals because of their appearances instead of behavior. Usually, individuals in the United States are being targeted because of their race and skin color. Adnan R. Khan's essay, Close Encounters with US Immigrants, from Maclean's in 2002, argues that racial profiling is and should always be unacceptable because it leads to misunderstandings and misidentification. Racial profiling can be seen as racist and unethical. Khan speaks of an encounter he had with immigration officials at the American border and described the unsatisfied experience as being "made to feel like an unwanted outsider, as if I were guilty to some heinous crime and now it was my responsibility to prove my

innocence" (Khan 572). In this situation, Khan was stopped, frisked, and questioned for about three hours all because his appearance and race made him seem suspicious. After all the chaos that the immigration officials had made, Khan was found innocent.
Some people may argue that they are having their rights taken away from them, such as the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (ushistory.org). The First Amendment was created to establish individual’s basic rights. Detaining someone under the assumption that they may have committed a crime is a civil liberties violation. With racial profiling, people are not being allowed to express themselves as a person. Timothy Garton Ash’s article, Behind the ban, from the Los Angeles Times, portrays how the women from France are being compelled to stop wearing burkas and niqabs because it is a “threat” (Ash) and it creates security issues. To some people, women wearing burkas can be seen as harmful or dangerous because you cannot see the person besides their eyes, so it is difficult to tell who or what is hiding under the clothing. Although this may be true in some cases, banning the burkas and forbidding women from wearing them takes away their rights. Wearing burkas, for women, is a form of freedom of expression and self-identity and should be allowed. These women are not being forced to wear burkas. It is simply their choice. Ash emphasizes, “Some also explain it as a protest and defense against a highly sexualized, voyeuristic public space: ‘For us it’s a way of saying that we are not a piece of meat in a stall, we are not a commodity’” (Ash). The women feel safe and protected under burkas and authorities have no right to take that away from them. These women are being targeted because of what they wear, but they are not causing any harm or trouble.
Similarly, in the United Statues of American today, racial profiling can seriously create racial tension.

Those who are most likely to be racially profiled against will not cooperate with law enforcement when necessary, even if they have not committed any crimes. In Khan’s essay, he discusses how he was interrogated. His notebook and personal organizer were confiscated, so when two gentlemen who introduced themselves as members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force started to question him, he remained silent. Khan knew that he had done nothing wrong, but still he was being treated like a criminal. Khan recalled, “The border patrol agent casually asked if I spoke Pakistani, and I was tempted to respond that while my Pakistani was a bit rough, I could speak Canadian flawlessly,” (Khan 572). After having personal belongings taken away and being discriminated against, Khan did not feel the need to cooperate with the officials. He then continued, “But I refrained. Why tempt fate, especially when fate’s accomplices had me cornered in a back office of a foreign country” (Khan 572). The officials put Khan under a stereotype and assumed he was up to no good which made Khan upset because in reality, he had done nothing

wrong.
Confusion about racial identity can easily cause the wrong person to be accused of a crime. It is easy to put the blame on certain racial groups and label them as a bad person who does not do the right things. In Linda Chavez’s piece written in 2002 for townhall.com, Chavez speaks of an incident that occurred involving an Arab American Secret Service agent, Walid Shater, who was denied access to fly on American Airlines. Shater was found with a loaded gun, but the only reason why he was targeted to be searched well was because of his skin color. Chavez expresses how “racial profiling entails picking someone out for special scrutiny simply because of his race” (Chavez 575). Admittedly, on cases like this, it may be okay to call someone out and question them based on the color of their skin for safety reasons. Statistics show that certain ethnicities are more likely to commit certain types of crimes. No one wants to be stuck in a plane with someone who was able to sneak in a loaded gun because who knows what else they are capable of. On the other hand, every single person getting on a plane should be thoroughly searched in the first place before even boarding onto a plane. That way, no one has to worry about being singled out because of their appearance or race.
Racial profiling is a constitutional problem and creates misidentification of innocent suspects. Several times, members of the Los Angeles Police Department experience horrible things and therefore being super careful and aware of everything that goes on around them. Consequently, there are times where police members are mistaken and that can cause serious problems. There was an article written about a prominent black scholar named Henry Louis Gates Jr. who was arrested in Massachusetts after being seen forcing into a house. It was later discovered that it was Gates’s own house which he was trying to get into. It turns out that Gates got locked out of his own house and had to force his way in. This obviously gave an officer the wrong impression because of the suspect’s skin color and race. Gates pointed out, “I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African American male this way... more importantly I’m astonished that is could happen to any citizen of the United States, no matter what their race it” (LA Times). Instead of being arrested, the police officer should have easily just questioned Gates about what he was doing and why was he trying to force himself into the house. There was no need to arrest him or to treat him with such cruelty.
Besides the physical appearance of a person, such as their skin color, human beings are all the same and they are all capable of doing the same things and committing the same crimes.

For instance, in Neil Foley’s article, Becoming Hispanic: Mexican Americans and Whiteness, the author emphasizes on the fact that white skinned people receive all of the privileges and opportunities. A group named LULAC, which stands for the League of United Latin American Citizens, tried really hard to prove how “Americanized” (Foley 55) Mexican Americans really were. They argued, “They spoke English, voted, used the court systems, got elected to office, actively opposed Mexican immigration, and excluded Mexican citizens from membership in LULAC. They organized baseball teams and ate quantities of hot dogs” (Foley 55). This was stated and expressed to portray the fact that Mexican Americans are capable of doing the exact same things as what white people are capable of doing. No one racial group is better than another. We all accomplish the same tasks day by

day.
In many different places, whites are segregated from people of darker colored skin. Mixing the two would be considered “dirty” (Foley 54). It all started with the case of Plessy V. Ferguson, in 1896, where people were considered separate but equal, but it was not until the case of the Brown v. Board of Education where it was decided that blacks and whites should not be segregated from facilities such as parks, schools, and restaurants any longer. However, there have been cases of a “segregation of Mexican children from White schools” (Foley 54). Race should not be the factor that determines who can get along and who can or cannot be seen together. Everyone is in it together whether they like it or not.
It is surprising how many times police officers stop Hispanics and people of color because of their skin color. Bob Herbert’s article, Jim Crow Policing, reveals the statistics and hidden truths behind car stops. Police members are frequently stopping men who are driving simply because of “inappropriate attire” (Herbert 44). They claim these common stops of innocent people as “life-saving” (Herbert 44). In reality, they are not making much of any life-saving because statistics defend that while “84 percent of the stops in the first three-quarters of 2009 were of black or Hispanic New Yorkers…only 1.6 percent” of blacks, “1.5 percent” of Hispanics, and “2.2 percent” of Whites were actually caught with drugs. Police members are targeting the wrong racial group without even realizing it.
Racial profiling is a concept which targets certain individuals based on their appearance and skin color. In most cases, it is a threat and is very harmful to certain innocent people. Racial profiling does not protect America from terrorist attacks. It, instead, creates conflict and causes misconception and misidentification of an individual. Racial profiling can easily cause the wrong person to be labeled as a bad person. It is unnecessary and inappropriate.