High court?s landmark ruling a setback for offspring of Haitians

Some would say the USA should adopt the same law the DR has.

....sometimes I get the feeling that the DR and Haiti don't really get along.

ramesses said:

....sometimes I get the feeling that the DR and Haiti don't really get along.

Click to expand...

You think ???

The decision is correct, according to Dominican law and constitution, but there should be a way for these children that through no fault of their own to get identity papers.

"What a bunch of idiots! What exactly are foreigners in transit? So DR wants US to recognize illegal Dominicans, but they are doing the contrary?
These judges are simply living in the past, medieval era and do not see that the world has changed. They are clueless in terms of what is going on in the world!
Wow!
They are relying on a 1929 law to come up with this decisiion? Really".

Most countries in the world do not award automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, foreigners in transit, tourists, students and in some cases legal residents even if such children are born in those countries. This obtains in the majority of countries on every continent. I will give a few examples in each continent as the list of countries is very long.

In Europe; Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Italy, and recently ( about 10 years ago or so) U.K and France changed their laws to ensure that children of persons in the categories above are not offered automatic citizenship even if they are born in those countries.

In Asia the story is the same. I do not know of any country in Asia that offers citizenship to children of illegal immigrants! Definately not China, Japan, India, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a host of other countries.

The same thing happens in Africa, South America, and in North America, Mexico does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, tourists or students. In Australia, it is the same.

The Dominican Republic is definately not alone in refusing citizenship to children of illigal immigrants and non citizens.

ktn...........

I totally support the U.S.A adopting similar laws. The United Kingdom and France, I believe changed their laws about 10 years ago, such that being born in those countries does not confer automatic citizenship unless the parents are citizens. This has in effect, drastically reduced the number of pregnant women from all over the world, especially the third world, who run to the U.K to have their babies as there is no longer an incentive.

The situation in the U.S.A is absolutely ridiculous! You have tens of thousands of pregnant Mexican women running across the border to have their children in the hospitals in the border towns in the U.S. In Mexico, children of illegal aliens, who are born in Mexico are not Mexican citizens!! You also have thousands pregnant tourists from all over the world, flying into different cities in the U.S.A to have babies, just because once a baby is born in a U.S. hospital, the hospital issues the baby with an American birth certificate before the baby leaves the hospital!! This does not happen in most countries in the world!!

Kantana said:

I totally support the U.S.A adopting similar laws. The United Kingdom and France, I believe changed their laws about 10 years ago, such that being born in those countries does not confer automatic citizenship unless the parents are citizens. This has in effect, drastically reduced the number of pregnant women from all over the world, especially the third world, who run to the U.K to have their babies as there is no longer an incentive.

The situation in the U.S.A is absolutely ridiculous! You have tens of thousands of pregnant Mexican women running across the border to have their children in the hospitals in the border towns in the U.S. In Mexico, children of illegal aliens, who are born in Mexico are not Mexican citizens!! You also have thousands pregnant tourists from all over the world, flying into different cities in the U.S.A to have babies, just because once a baby is born in a U.S. hospital, the hospital issues the baby with an American birth certificate before the baby leaves the hospital!! This does not happen in most countries in the world!!

Click to expand...

What about the people who are brought in because of they can pay them almost nothing....and they have a baby that was conceived and born during such work?

This has always been the law in Domincan Republic. Being born in Dominican Republic does not grant you citizenship like it does in the US. Every Dominican or individual that has lived in Dominican Republic long enough knew & knows about it, the problem was that it wasn't being enforced or should I say they were handing out documents that had no real legal value. Most of the time during political campaigns for presidential elections.

charlise said:

You think ???

Click to expand...

I think he was being sarcastic.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Mexicans are not slaves!!!!!

150 years old, maybe it needs to be changed. As do many of the laws of the USA that were written in the days of horses as transportation!!!!!
Why the infatuation with the Constitution? Much of it needs to be changed, but can’t as 1/3 of the smaller states hold the rest of the country hostage. The constitutions’ antiquity will eventually lead to the demise of the country.

bob saunders said:

The decision is correct, according to Dominican law and constitution, but there should be a way for these children that through no fault of their own to get identity papers.

Click to expand...

The children get their identity papers: the Haitian ones; the DR doesn't have to provide them with another set.

The issue is not that simple.

Our Constitution has always admitted that a person born in the DR is a Dominican, except those born to members of foreign diplomatic and consular missions, and foreigners who are “in transit”.

The 2010 Constitution added “or to those residing illegally in Dominican territory”, which, of course, is not applicable to anybody born in the DR before 2010 because the Constitution is not retroactive.

The question thus hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “foreigner in transit”. Some argue that it applies to illegal immigrants; others say that a person in transit is just somebody passing through the DR on the way to somewhere else.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the DR, based on article 26 of the present Constitution and analogous provisions in older ones, recognizes as binding the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and this Court has refused on several occasions to accept the argument that a Haitian laborer who has lived in the DR for decades is a person “in transit”, ruling against the Dominican Republic. The lady who lost the case in the Dominican Constitutional Court has, in fact, declared her intention to appeal to the Inter-American Court.

I have just skimmed the 147-page decision. I intend to expand on this when I return from vacation.

ramesses said:

What about the people who are brought in because of they can pay them almost nothing....and they have a baby that was conceived and born during such work?

Click to expand...

The last group of people that were brought in to work in the U.S.A. were African slaves. So that doesn't apply. Everyone else arrived by their own free will. I agree with the rest of the world and prevent who becomes a citizen because illegal immigration.

drescape24

Luperon said:

Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Mexicans are not slaves!!!!!

150 years old, maybe it needs to be changed. As do many of the laws of the USA that were written in the days of horses as transportation!!!!!
Why the infatuation with the Constitution? Much of it needs to be changed, but can?t as 1/3 of the smaller states hold the rest of the country hostage. The constitutions? antiquity will eventually lead to the demise of the country.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree! The Congress is divided into two house. The House of Representatives is by population of the state with the amount of Seats awarded to states based on the census done every ten years. This is where states lose or gain Representatives.
The Senate has two Senaters from each state.
The reason for this is the exact opposite of the little states holding the big states hostage. What it really prevents is the larger states with more representatives out voting the smaller states because the have more member.
That's why the House passes a bill and then it moves to the Senate for a vote. Then if the Senate doesn't pass that bill it goes back to the house to be rewritten with compromises.
After the two house pass the bill it goes to the President to be signed or voted.
So that why small states don't controll the legislature.

drescape24

drescape24 said:

I totally disagree! The Congress is divided into two house. The House of Representatives is by population of the state with the amount of Seats awarded to states based on the census done every ten years. This is where states lose or gain Representatives.
The Senate has two Senaters from each state.
The reason for this is the exact opposite of the little states holding the big states hostage. What it really prevents is the larger states with more representatives out voting the smaller states because the have more member.
That's why the House passes a bill and then it moves to the Senate for a vote. Then if the Senate doesn't pass that bill it goes back to the house to be rewritten with compromises.
After the two house pass the bill it goes to the President to be signed or voted.
So that why small states don't controll the legislature.

drescape24

Click to expand...

But the big states can and do control the Presidency, Then the larger cities in the less populated States/Areas control the state legislators, and there electoral vote. Which is why areas like Northern Colorado, an Northern California, want to secede from their larger cities. That's why they call it Fly Over Country.

bienamor said:

But the big states can and do control the Presidency, Then the larger cities in the less populated States/Areas control the state legislators, and there electoral vote. Which is why areas like Northern Colorado, an Northern California, want to secede from their larger cities. That's why they call it Fly Over Country.

Click to expand...

But the presidency is only one branch of government, the executive. You still can't pass laws unless Congress, the legislative branch, first comes up with a document that is agreed upon by the house and the senate. Then the president can vote or veto. If he vetoes then it goes back to Congress where it can be overriden if they have the numbers. There are a lot of checks and balances. That is why everyone has to agree before something gets passed into law. That is why there are many compromises in order to get things done. And when that does not happen then you have impasses like you see happening in the US at this moment. What does that mean? Nothing, othen that the general population suffering until they can agree.

As I see it, The Dominican "Constitution" is a document that is frequently changed, to show the political agenda of the political party in office, and by that party voting on the changes, NOT by the Dominican people.
It must be difficult to place much faith in an ever changing, "Semi-Permanent" politically motivated document!
Cris Colon