Base suspicion on behavior, not race

To the editor:

In response to Vernon Pechous's Friday letter justifying racial profiling:

Mr. Pechous should be aware that the Islamic men mentioned were all in the United States legally. If they had been stopped or detained and required to show their papers documenting their legal status, there would have been no problem.

Timothy McVeigh, a young, Caucasian male, was a documented U.S. citizen and Army veteran. He committed a heinous act of terrorism by driving a rental truck full of explosives and parking it next to a government building, resulting in the deaths of 168 people, including 19 under the age of 6. If he had been stopped, questioned and required to provide papers showing he was in the United States legally, again, there would have been no problem.

If Arizona, or any other state, can enact a law that requires any person who "appears" (i.e. of Mexican heritage) to be illegal to be stopped, questioned and required to show papers documenting status, then why can't they also enact a law that anyone appearing to be a young, Caucasian male, driving a rental truck, can be stopped and searched?

The basis for stopping any individual and further questioning his legal status must be that individual's behavior -- such as a legal violating -- not his race or appearance.

If employers in the United States would only hire individuals who were here legally and could document that fact, how many illegal immigrants do you think would be coming here to work?

To solve the problem, look to the main source of the problem, not the results of the problem.

Michael R. Stilley

Mesquite