Dominating the headlines for the past few weeks across the United States has been a news item out of Arizona. Recently, Arizona lawmakers passed a tough measure into law meant to tackle illegal immigration. The contents of this law, and reactions to it, offer valuable lessons moving forward to anyone concerned with American politics and public policy.

The first of these lessons strikes a personal note. As other contributors to NextGenGOP.com can attest, this author has seen his position evolve on the Arizona controversy. Initially, there seemed reason to be skeptical of the measure. The legislation appeared well-intended but flawed, and conservatives were not helping their cause. While many on the Right were indelicate in their defense of the measure, so were some among its critics. Then, the intricacies of what the carefully-worded Arizona statute meant to do eased the objections of this writer. Nonetheless, further developments would recalibrate where this author stood on the reviled Arizona immigration statute.

Indeed, as delicately worded as the Arizona statute was, the authority it gave to state officials was entirely too broad. This did not entirely change in a subsequent revision of the law.  The ends of enforcing immigration laws are just and to be praised, but the means made law in the forty-eighth state are entirely too broad. As a result, the law is rightly criticised. That this effort in Arizona has generated discussion of an issue more important than trillion-dollar health reform is certainly a good thing. However, the fallout generated from this legislation borders on the absurd.

Despite the problems with the Arizona law, its critics have overreacted. The Phoenix Suns basketball team wore attire displaying the team name as “Los Suns” as a means of protest against the law. Some businesses and other organizations have considered boycotts of Arizona, and may reschedule conferences or large events to other locales. This sort of nonsense has extended to government too.

The Arizona law was roundly denounced in Washington, D.C. Leading figures in the GOP condemned the law soon after the story broke. Senate leaders saw the controversy as an opportunity to promote their immigration reform plan. For some activists on the Left though, any measure that improves border security while also accomodating existing unlawful immigrant populations is unacceptable. A members of Congress from Arizona, Raul Grijalva, called for a boycott of his home state over the new law. Hopefully, the people of his district will see such absurdity for what it is, and put said “representative” out of work when the election rolls around in November. Press reports speculated that Republicans within and beyond Arizona could be hurt by their widespread suport for the law. Curiously, however, national policymakers may have misread the situation slightly. Indeed, Republicans may make gains as a result of the law.

Throughout this ongoing controversy, one thing remains apparent; Americans are obsessed with race. While it is true that the United States has had a rough history with respect to those of other backgrounds, matters are not helped by U.S. laws and policies throughout the country which reward considerations of race in numerous contexts. As has been discussed before, diversity of ideas matters more than diversity of culture or creed.

Several children in California were sent home from school on threat of suspension last week for expressing patriotism on the fifth of May. The students, who wore shirts depicting U.S. flags offended Mexican classmates. Instead of being condemned for their lunacy, however, school administrators have been defended by the very same people who were the loudest in their denunciations of the Arizona immigration statute.

Critics who rightly condemned the excesses of the pilloried Arizona immigration law should be no less opposed to students in a state of the United States wearing patriotic attire if not in violation of a school dress code. To do otherwise is to tacitly validate Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature and their approach to immigration reform. There is no consistency in condemning the Arizona law for its excesses while defending school administrators in Morgan Hill, California for sending home those five students.

There were protests in Lebanon the week that the Arizona controversy made national headlines. The two events offered a fitting but unexplored contrast to one another. The people of Lebanon were demonstrating against the lack of a civil society in their country. Lebanon is a country so concerned with diversity that it is in practice a segregationist state where members of one community can have little to no legally-sanctioned relationships with those of another. Such an obsession with differences over similarities has left Lebanon a country in name only.

When students attending a school in the United States can be sent home for the day on the basis of offending peers who desire to celebrate the holiday of another country, an excess has occurred, and one no less drastic than a state law meant to enforce existing laws.  Indeed, there are surely those proponents of the Arizona immigration law who would point to the incident in California last week as vindication of their efforts, including the passge of another law in Arizona cancelling the “Chicano Studies” program at a state university.

Promoting differences of culture or appearance over similarities has driven Lebanon to constant instability. Though intending otherwise, too many on the contemporary left would lead the United States down a similar path. This is something the people of Arizona sought to prevent, and something they were right to do, even if the means employed were wrong. Republicans should make the case for civil society even as they criticise governmental excess on the campaign trail this year.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010