142 COLUM. J. RACE & L. [Vol. 11:83 normatively justified. 258 Seyla Benhabib reasons that giving preference to a certain group with good reasons may not be morally forbidden.259 States in which certain ethnic groups reside are likely to plead for special treatment of their ethnic kin; in fact, there are states, such as Israel, which make the right of return a legal privilege for those who can claim Jewish descent. Similarly, Germany has policies which grant special privileges of return to ethnic Germans from the Baltic states, Russia, and other countries of eastern and central Europe (the so-called Aussiedler and Vertriebene). As long as a state does not deny those of different ethnicity and religion equivalent rights to seek entry and admission into a country . . . these practices need not be discriminatory. It is only because such practices are combined with the goals of preserving ethnic majorities and ethnic purity that they run afoul of and are discriminatory from a human rights perspective.260 Ernst goes on to note that Benhabib’s reasoning is in keeping with ICERD’s use of the term “against” (“that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality”) in the text of Article 1(3).261 It may be possible to assert that Benhabib’s reasoning is also in keeping with the drafting history of Article 1(3) which, as shown above, was motivated at least in part by concerns of certain developing and newly independent states related to anti-colonialism or selfdetermination. Finally, Benhabib’s emphasis on the requirement of “good reason”262 is in keeping with the Committee’s statement that “differential treatment based on nationality and national or ethnic origin constitutes discrimination if the criteria for such (2003). 258 See id. See also CHAIM GANS, THE LIMITS OF NATIONALISM 124–47 259 See Ernst, supra note 255, at 589–601. 260 SEYLA BENHABIB, THE RIGHTS OF O THERS 138 n.2 (2004). See also Ernst, supra note 255, at 589–601. 261 Ernst, supra note 255, at 583 (citations omitted). For a discussion on Israel’s new Citizenship and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order) Law, 2003, and the 2006 decision of the High Court of Justice upholding the constitutionality of that law, see Yoav Peled, Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime, 8 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 603 (2007). 262 BENHABIB, supra note 260, at 132.