Session 4:  Immigration, Assimilation and Detention
Chair: Ted Seto


Minorities and their Contributions to the Development of the Host Country
Ana Ila
Wellesley College, USA

Some minorities achieve a high socio-economic status in their country, whereas others don’t. Chinese minority in Thailand, or Jewish minority in Europe, led economic growth, because they had the skills and access to social networks outside of the borders, which enabled them to bring capital and knowledge in the country. Roma or the African-Americans in the USA were enslaved and forbidden to gain human capital, or own land. As slaves, they could not contribute to the economic development and their own development as the other minorities, who were free in their host countries.
Government policies hinder development of groups who do not have strong social networks, or who have been stigmatized. Thus, Roma and the African-Americans, even as freed, were left with social stigma that they were something repulsive; as a result, they developed the tunnel effect. They were with weaker social networks or networks of weaker status than the majority population.  As they were freed, Roma were recognized as migrants and not immediately as minorities, which disabled them to fight for their share of the country’s resources. Government policies recognized the problems as exogenous and hence these two groups were left in ghettoes, inadequate schools or and improper sanitation environments. Thus, in a new, changing economic world, they have been left behind, just as the African-Americans in the USA, and though some improvements in countries’ policies have been made, more effort is still to be undertaken in order to improve these minorities’ socio-economic situation, which is hindered in the EU candidate countries under the disguise of cultural protection, and thus leaves Roma in the status of dependants and not active agents. NGOs have mostly taken on the role that the states have refused through the protection and furthering of the Roma economic and political awareness and development.

Download Draft Conference Paper -

Protecting us from the Forces of Evil: Judicial and non-Judicial Detention in Australia
Francesca Dominello
Division of Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

[T]hese animals represent pure evil. These animals deserve never to see the exit sign at the prison gate. These animals are reviled and shunned by anyone who has ever heard of their heinous crimes. There is not a person in our community who does not need protection from these animals and the security of knowing they will never again be free. (Paul Whelan (Minister for Police) New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates Legislative Assembly, 8 May 1997, 8337)
Australia has a history of detaining persons with (and without) judicial orders. In recent times various pieces of legislation authorising long-term detention of certain persons have been the subject of constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia. The challenges relate to legislation that authorises detention for purposes other than punishment for breaches of the criminal law. This paper will focus on a common argument running through all of these cases that the legislation under challenge offends the judicial power of the Commonwealth as enshrined in the Australian Constitution. In most of these cases the constitutional challenge has failed. Particular attention will be given to the rhetoric underlying these decisions that supports the validity of these laws by emphasising the need for protection: whether of the broader Australian community, or of the very individuals who have been detained. Detention for the purpose of providing such protection may be a legitimate use of legislative power, but it becomes less than clear whether such use of power is legitimate when it also functions in a punitive way.

Download Draft Conference Paper -

In Search of Protection: Facing ‘Janus Faces’ in Protecting Chinese Ethnic in Indonesia
Benny Setianto
Faculty of Law, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, Indonesia

Despite their length of existence in the Indonesian Archipelago, Chinese ethnic is still considered as a “foreigner” in Indonesia. Moreover, even though the latest Citizenship Act has acknowledged normatively that Chinese-ethnic is considered as a part of native Indonesian therefore holds directly Indonesian citizenship; there are still many laws that discriminate them.
Specific code on their national identification card (ID Card), different procedures to register their marriage, different “charge” to be paid in return of services provided by government offices compare to other ethnics are easily to be found as examples of how discrimination exists against them. The Dutch Policy during their colonial time has perceived as the origin of the discrimination against Chinese, however, why the newly Independence state of the Republic of Indonesia could not alter the laws remained in questions.
In order to understand that the paper tries to examine first, the origin of the law that discriminates Chinese-ethnic in Indonesian archipelago. Second, describes briefly the nature of the law so that the authority at that time needed the law in question to be enforced and maintained as well as who benefited from those laws. Third, explores the struggle of Chinese-ethnic in coping with those discriminations, including the debate of their identity in the earlier era of Republic of Indonesia. Finally examines the latest policy in protecting Chinese Ethnic against discrimination whether the state really protecting Chinese-ethnic or providing new sphere in discriminating them.     
By doing so, the paper will conclude whether the law in Indonesia could be considered as evil for Chinese-ethnic in Indonesia since they provide legal framework to conduct violence and discriminate against them, or they generate protections.   

Download Draft Conference Paper -