Every child growing up in the US knows that there were once de jure restrictions placed on African-Americans and the laws have changed and this is now illegal and happens now only on a de facto basis, such as the infamous “driving while black” racial profiling scandal. Many cases of de facto discrimination are now legally actionable by lawsuit. Many people also know about South Africa’s apartheid laws.
Are there any countries or jurisdictions within countries where there is de jure discrimination on a racial or ethnic basis today? Specifically, I’m looking for areas where the very fact of a person’s racial or ethnic background is what matters, and where learning another language, adopting another form of dress, renouncing or gaining a citizenship, or converting to another religion does not remove the legal effect of the discrimination (although it might result in better de facto treatment).
I know that some traditionally Muslim countries have de jure restrictions on non-Muslims, but I was under the impression that the legal aspects of the discrimination relate to the person’s religion, and that a non-Muslim who converts to Islam is considered to no longer fall under the religious discrimination laws, whether they are ethnically Arab, Coptic, Jewish, Irish, Japanese, or Australian Aborigine. Are there any traditionally Muslim countries where Arab Muslim citizens who speak fluent Arabic have more legal rights than non-Arab Muslim citizens who speak fluent Arabic?
This thread seems to indicate that Malaysia is one. Citizens who are of the Malay ethnic group appear to have substantive legal rights above other citizens. Are there any others?
Look know further than Japan. There are Japanese people of Korean descent who have been living in Japan for generations but may never be allowed to have Japanese citizenship because they aren’t ethnically Japanese.
That may be true, but I don’t see where it says that in your cite. Your cite seems to indicate systemic de facto discrimination, but I don’t see where it refers to any de jure discrimination.
Only if conversion is not recognized. I intended in my OP to specifically exclude religious discrimination. If the Lebanese government refuses to recognize converts and instead puts people in an ancestral quota (e.g. “I don’t care if you say that you are Muslim, your parents/grandparents are/were Christian and that’s what quota you belong to”), then I would say that it counts. If people are categorized by actual profession of personal belief or affiliation and people switch categories upon declaration of conversion, then it doesn’t count.
Malaysia has the Bumiputera system. Malays (& some other indigenous groups) have special rights & privileges denied to other ethnic groups like the Chinese or Indians.
Just to be complicated, even in Malaysia it’s technically possible to be reclassified as Bumiputra (Malay, basically) as long as one of your parents was a Muslim Malay, you convert to Islam and you speak Malay habitually. But it requires a pretty specific set of circumstances and if both your parents were Hokiken-speaking Buddhist Chinese (for example) then you’re completely out of luck even if you convert to Islam, learn fluent Malay and never speak another word of Hokkien again.
Would special rights granted to the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa in Minnesota count as racial discrimination for the purposes of this discussion? They were allowed to fish in lakes before the official season opened, and to use nets and spearfishing, resulting in their removing pretty much all the fish in some of the lakes in one weekend, much to the consternation of the (primarily white) US citizens who had to wait before they went fishing.
It could. I do think, however, that status as a Native American in the US is, unlike all the other ethnic/racial categories that are recognized in law, based on formal tribal membership. A person with no actual Native DNA who somehow managed to become an enrolled member of a tribe (e.g. by adoption) would have all the rights of a tribal member with native ancestry. Also, some tribes have “blood quantum” requirements that state that one must not only have native blood but must have a minimum percent of blood, such as 25%. That means that a 1/4 Native person who was a tribal member who marries a person with no native blood would have children that would not be eligible for tribal membership. In a sense, tribal membership is a sort of citizenship where the tribes make their own rules. Apparently there is a long running controversy over tribal membership for descendants of African Americans who were adopted into the Cherokee tribe in the 1800’s.
Look no further than the treatment of the First Nations, here in North America. We signed legal documents making promises we have never had to keep, even to this day!