Arizona immigration author: 9/11 attacks ‘apparently okay to the left’
Former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (R) is bitterly upset about the Supreme Court striking down most of the law he authored, and he’s not afraid to show it on live television.
Attempting to justify the one part of the law the Supreme Court deferred judgement on — a provision many agree helps drive racial profiling by police — Pearce insisted that his proposal could have “averted” the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which he said were “apparently okay to the left.”
All of which, of course, is patently absurd. For one, there’s no way of knowing how the officers would have reacted during those stops, even if they had Arizona-like laws backing them up. Another point Pearce apparently missed: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had an informant living with two of the hijackers in San Diego — at the same time both men were under surveillance by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) — but nobody managed to connect the dots in time to prevent the attack.
For Pearce to assume that his law, by itself, could have prevented the attacks is a bit more than outrageous.
He added that it is “demeaning to law enforcement” to suggest that giving officers the power to request immigration documents from anyone who looks out of place might lead to racial profiling. But demeaning to officers or not, racial profiling in Arizona and around the country is a serious problem. Statistics released by the Department of Justice in 2007 revealed that nation-wide, African-Americans and Latinos were roughly three times as likely to be searched during a police stop.
That’s not just a reflection on Arizona, but on the U.S. public in general. Polling in 2010 found that about 64 percent of registered voters said they were in favor of Arizona’s law and would like to see the policy implemented in their own states. Supporters included almost half of all Democrats, half of all independents and about 80 percent of all Republicans.