The underlying debate of racial profiling is essentially how much do we sacrifice and compromise on for the sake of national security. Do we scrutinize some people more than others for the sake of our communities and society or do we treat everyone on equal footing regardless of religion, race, gender etc. While the latter sounds more fitting for a democratic country and is certainly more socially acceptable, there is credible evidence that minority groups such as Hispanics and blacks tend to have a higher rate crime than the average white person. Therefore, given the racial disparities in criminal activity, it is logical for police officers/ law enforcers to practice “racial profiling” in order to effectively provide protection for those communities.

I think the real problem of racial profiling is the feelings of distrust and degradation that arise from this type of proactive policing, whether it be between citizens or between police officers and the subjected minorities.  However, this is something that naturally stems from this practice. In a similar vein, law enforcers are faced with the problem of either being called a racists or not protecting the community enough. Moreover, in times of crisis and fear such as the attack on the twin towers, the Orlando shooting etc, community members request more police protection and better security; overall this issue is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that we are one country, built by immigrants, minorities, different religions and cultures, which ultimately built our nation to what it is today. Our differences can divide us or they can open our minds to new ideas and cultures and make us a more accepting nation.