As Ahmed and Craig (1993 and 1999, respectively) have argued, the state’s response to the needs of these groups is ambivalent: on one hand, the state has slightly improved the social integration of ethnic minorities through legislations that outlaw discrimination such as the 1965 and 1976 Race Relation Act and Race Relation (Amendment Act) 2000 but on the other hand, the state continues to exercise institutional racism, i.e. form of racism that has to do with the unintentional implementation of policies that put these minorities in an unfavourable position because of their cultural and ethnic differences (Sweeney et al., 2003) like restrictions on immigration that limit the access to state
As Ahmed and Craig (1993 and 1999, respectively) have argued, the state’s response to the needs of these groups is ambivalent: on one hand, the state has slightly improved the social integration of ethnic minorities through legislations that outlaw discrimination such as the 1965 and 1976 Race Relation Act and Race Relation (Amendment Act) 2000 but on the other hand, the state continues to exercise institutional racism, i.e. form of racism that has to do with the unintentional implementation of policies that put these minorities in an unfavourable position because of their cultural and ethnic differences (Sweeney et al., 2003) like restrictions on immigration that limit the access to state