Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 111

Thread: Haitians Born in the DR of illegal parents stripped of DR Citizenship

  1. #1
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    15,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Haitians Born in the DR of illegal parents stripped of DR Citizenship

    Dominican ruling strips many of citizenship

    By EZEQUIEL ABIU LOPEZ and DANICA COTO
    Associated Press

    SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (AP) – The Dominican Republic’s top court on Thursday stripped citizenship from thousands of people born to migrants who came illegally, a category that overwhelmingly includes Haitians brought in to work on farms.

    The decision cannot be appealed, and it affects all those born since 1929.

    The Constitutional Court’s ruling says officials are studying birth certificates of more than 16,000 people and notes that electoral authorities have refused to issue identity documents to 40,000 people of Haitian descent.

    The decision, which gives the electoral commission a year to produce a list of those to be excluded, is a blow to activists who have tried to block what they call “denationalization” of many residents.

    “This is outrageous,” said Ana Maria Belique, spokeswoman for a nonprofit group that has fought for the rights of migrants’ children. “It’s an injustice based on prejudice and xenophobia.”

    Until 2010, the Dominican Republic followed the principle of automatically bestowing citizenship to anyone born on its soil. But the court ruled that all Haitian migrants who came to work in Dominican sugarcane fields after 1929 were in transit, and thus their children were not automatically entitled to citizenship just because they were born here.

    The Economy Ministry recently calculated that some 500,000 migrants born in Haiti now live in the Dominican Republic, but it gave no estimate for the number of people of Haitian descent living in the country. The Dominican Republic’s total population is a little over 10 million.

    The office of Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe did not respond to messages seeking comment about the ruling.

    Edwin Paraison, a former Haitian Cabinet minister who has been working to improve relations between the two nations, criticized the court and warned that the ruling could hurt Dominicans. “The sentence expresses a rejection of the Haitian diaspora while setting a dangerous precedent that can be reproduced, if appropriate action isn’t taken, against other immigrant communities, including Dominicans, in several countries worldwide,” he said in an email.

    David Abraham, a law professor at the University of Miami, said the decision was part of a larger effort to keep Haitians from entering the Dominican Republic and to encourage self-deportation.

    He cited the racial differences between predominantly black Haitians and mixed-race Dominicans as well as Haiti’s plight as one of the world’s poorest countries.

    “The fear of the Dominican Republic, of being pulled down to the level of Haiti economically and the ‘blackening’ of the country, has been an obsession of Dominican politicians for well over a century,” he said.

    The Spanish-speaking Dominican Republic and Creole-speaking Haiti share the island of Hispaniola and have a long, troubled history.

    Haiti invaded and took over the Dominican Republic for more than 20 years in the 19th century. Then in 1937, Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo ordered the massacre of an estimated 20,000 Haitians as he sought to expel them from the country.

    After Haiti’s devastating 2010 earthquake that killed an estimated 300,000 people, the Dominican Republic temporarily halted deportations and helped with relief efforts. It was a rare break in tensions that have since resumed.

    Dominican lawyer Cristobal Rodriguez, who opposes the ruling, said the court disregarded the principle of law retroactivity by applying the criteria of a new constitution approved in 2010 to people born decades earlier.

    Those affected by the court’s ruling are basically left in limbo because a 2004 law that would have addressed the status of those born to migrants living illegally in the Dominican Republic was never applied.

    “This ruling cuts against the rights of thousands of people born in the Dominican Republic, and could immediately undermine their access to education and health services,” Reed Brody, counsel and spokesman for Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “It’s also likely to discourage an entire community from seeking help when they suffer abuses, for fear of authorities learning their status.”

    In Port-au-Prince, construction worker Jean Ronald said he was disheartened by the ruling but wouldn’t be discouraged from crossing the border when he needs a job.

    “This isn’t going to stop me, because I need to find work on the other side of the island,” Ronald, a single, 32-year-old father of two boys, said at a construction site in Port-au-Prince. “Life is a risk, and I’m going to take that risk.”

    Activists said they would likely seek help from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which in turn might submit the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

    Jorge Duany, an anthropology professor at Florida International University who has studied the migration of Dominicans in the Caribbean, said the decision comes after countless years of friction between the two countries.

    “The impact could be truly catastrophic,” he said. “They are stigmatizing an entire Haitian population.”

    Source: klkntv.com

  2. #2
    Silver
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,987
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Retroactive laws are unfair in nature and usually create more problems than they solve.
    How can you punish anybody for something they did, if it was legal and lawful when they did it? Mind boggling, at best...

    God forbids the US pass a law like that...

  3. Likes ExtremeR liked this post
  4. #3
    Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    How can one apply a 1929 law that made no sense at the time to the current era? This is beyond myself.
    Yes, it was the law, but those judges should use their judgement to see if this lawy makes sense in today's world. Wow!
    Even former president GOEGE H BUSH SAID: " THERE ARE LEGAL DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT CORRECT, JUST AND HUMAN".
    Unbelievable! In the 21st century, for a group of judges to decide, based on an ARCHAIC LAW, to deny CITIZENSHIP to a group of people whose their only sins, were to be born of HAITIANS IN TRANSIT, as they call it!

  5. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The Anglican Bishop Emeritus Dominican Telésforo Isaac , the class "verdict" of the Dominican Constitutional Court against the descendants of Haitians born in the DR in 1929 , in the category " errors and major crimes " committed during the history under the guise of legality
    He calls the people , civil society and the leaders of two countries to prevent the serious consequences of such a provision
    Published Sunday, September 29, 2013
    The decision of 25 September 2013 the Dominican Constitutional Court (CC ) reminds us of many historical acts committed under the pretext of " take the bull by the horns " , but in fact represent more today pernicious acts , inhuman and contrary to what is right , just and acceptable within nations constituting the family of the globalized world of the planet Earth.

    The verdict of the CC is disconcerting . If, on the one hand, some believe the fair and based on the other hand there are many who see it as a source of serious controversy regarding the Migration Act . .

    The ease with which the CC has reached this conclusion difficult , instead of solving the problem of Dominicans born to foreign parents. Such an attitude on the part of members of the Court may result from one or more of the following factors : social prejudices , social intolerance , dislike , contempt for the culture of the other , the spirit of vengeance in reference to the history , nationalism exarcerbé , tendency to despotism , inhuman indifference vis-à -vis being, fear or insecurity resulting in a confused perception and unfounded.

    This decision of the CC should be " tempered " by the Dominicans and Haitians both sides of the border , and particularly by the heads of state , government officials , leaders of business and industry , leaders of nongovernmental organizations government and by religious leaders of the two countries .

    We can cite the well-known errors and calamities arising examples of decisions that , in history, had been legally adopted in accordance with the standards in the relevant times :

    a) The rules in Pharaonic Egypt , at a time of great buildings , based on the enslavement of the people ;
    b ) The persecution against Christians by the Roman emperors ;
    c) The persecution against Christians by Christians during the Middle Ages;
    d) The massacre of St. Bartholomew , France, when more than 10,000 Protestant Christians were killed on the night of August 23 to 24, 1572 ;
    e) The Inquisition , well-organized judicial institution created by the Papacy in order to eradicate heresy ;
    f) The Holocaust : the persecution and massacre of the Jews by Hitler and National Socialism in Germany , based on the concept of racial superiority .

    The story is full of events that are remembered with embarrassment , disbelief, and hope they will not happen again . Even today, certain acts of the same type continue to occur . The judgment of the Constitutional Court on Dominican nationality enrolled in this sign . It is a dangerous decision that will affect the history of the Dominican nation.

    As we know , all historical events were not beneficial to mankind : all legal decisions were not necessarily appropriate , fair and reasonable . The American expresident George Bush (father ) had once said: " There are legal decisions that are not necessarily correct , just and humane ."

    The judgment of the Constitutional Court Dominican presents this characteristic , especially in regard to the concept of " foreigners in transit " to which it refers and unusual retroactive baseless and he proclaims by setting 1929 as the year from which the Haitian descendants while non-residents in the DR will no longer considered Dominicans.

    Bishop Isaac Telésforo
    Bishop Emeritus of the Anglican Church ( Episcopal) Dominican .
    September 27, 2013
    [ TR : JMD / RK ]Undo editsAlpha

  6. #5
    Silver
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,987
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The final solution to the haitian question, I guess...

  7. Likes ExtremeR liked this post
  8. #6
    Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    While some people are ignoring the fact, here is avery detailed article about the decision:

    El Constitucional ignora la Corte Interamericana
    Por Juan Bolívar Díaz

    Santo Domingo.- El tribunal Constitucional (TC) no sólo negó amparo a una ciudadana que lo solicitaba, sino que la declaró no dominicana y se fue lejos al disponer una rastreo desde el 1929 (84 años) para despojar de la nacionalidad a nacidos e inscritos en el registro civil en por lo menos tres generaciones, si sus padres eran inmigrantes ilegales.
    La sentencia, objetada por dos juezas y por varios expertos constitucionalistas, choca con el dictamen del 2005 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), vinculante para el Estado Dominicano, que rechaza que quienes residan por largo tiempo en el país estén en tránsito y que la ilegalidad sea heredada por los hijos.
    Una sentencia histórica
    Tal como habían adelantado dos de sus integrantes, el TC evacuó una sentencia que hará historia como un adefesio jurídico que pretende el despojo de la nacionalidad a decenas de miles de personas que durante 8 décadas fueron registradas como dominicanas, al amparo de la constitución y leyes vigentes.
    La corte conoció una solicitud de amparo de la señora Juliana Deguis Pierre, nacida en Yamasá en 1984, (hace 29 años), y declarada por sus padres haitianos, a quien desde el 2008, la Junta Central Electoral (JCE) le niega copia de su acta de nacimiento con la que pretendía obtener la cédula de identidad, declarándola no dominicana y dejándola como muerta civil, junto a varios miles de descendientes de haitianos.
    Aunque en la misma sentencia se reconoce que el caso era competencia del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, y contrariando al menos 4 dictámenes propios en sus dos años de vigencia, el TC decidió conocer la instancia, “para garantizar el principio de economía procesal” pero sobrepasó la petición de la recurrente, no se pronunció sobre la legalidad o ilegalidad de la negativa de la copia del acta de nacimiento, y además dictaminó sobre la nacionalidad de millares de personas.
    La corte reconoció implícitamente la ilegalidad de la retención del acta al disponer que la JCE emita el documento a la señora Pierre y al mismo tiempo lo remita “al tribunal correspondiente para que determine su validez o nulidad”, Como la sentencia se fundamenta en que la recurrente es hija de “personas en tránsito” categoría de todas las constituciones dominicanas desde 1929, ordena a la JCE realizar una auditoría minuciosa de los libros del registro civil “para identificar e integrar en una lista documental” a todo los extranjeros desde ese año “se encuentran irregularmente inscritos por carecer de las condiciones instituidas por la constitución. Ese listado deberá ser incorporado a los nuevos libros de registro de nacimiento de extranjeros”.
    Serán decenas de miles
    Esa auditoría será una tarea bien difícil para realizarse en un año, prorrogable a dos, y tropezará con el hecho de que muchos libros de registro están desaparecidos o dañados. Tendrán que rastrear entre más de diez millones de personas, incluyendo los nacidos después del 1929 que han fallecido. Si sólo perseguirán intrusos haitianos, la tarea es menos difícil, buscando por apellidos de origen francés o patois. Los chinos e ingles serán menos. Los españoles no podrán ser detectados sin una lectura del acta para determinar los declarantes.
    Uno de los méritos de la sentencia es que confirma el estimado de unos 20 mil afectados por la resolución de la JCE cuando en su página 39 cita un cuadro que cuantifica en 16 mil 945 los expediente remitidos por la Dirección de Inspectoría del organismo para investigación y en 4 mil 836 los investigados y devueltos. El estimado del doctor José Ángel Aquino sólo abarcaba los nacidos después de 1984. Desde 1929 serán decenas de miles, aunque muchos habría que buscarlos en los cementerios.
    En miles de casos habrá tres y hasta cuatro generaciones de personas de un mismo tronco familiar “residentes ilegales”, que constituirían un verdadero apartheid que seguiría transmitiendo la ilegalidad a sus descendientes. Tendrán que decirle que ya no son dominicanos a personas hasta de 80 años que nacieron en el país, en una aplicación retroactiva de una nueva interpretación de la Constitución



    Objeciones Fundamentales.

    La sentencia fue firmada por once de los trece magistrados del tribunal constitucional que preside el jurista Milton Ray Guevara. Las doctoras Isabel Bonilla Hernández y Katia Miguelina Jiménez dejaron por escrito sus objeciones en documentos de quince y treinta páginas respectivamente, donde rechazan el planteamiento fundamental de la mayoría, de que es inválido todo registro de nacimiento realizado por inmigrantes ilegales desde 1929.

    Las dos magistradas se ampararon en la sentencia del 2005 emitida por la CIDH sosteniendo que son vinculantes para el Estado Dominicano. Bonilla planteó que de conformidad con los artículos 67 y 68 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, “los estados partes reconocen que los fallos de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos son definitivos e inapelables y no pueden ser impugnados o revisados en el ámbito interno”.

    Tanto las dos magistradas como los expertos en derecho constitucional rebaten la interpretación que hace la sentencia de los artículos constitucionales referente a la nacionalidad. Específicamente el planteamiento de que los trabajadores inmigrantes están en transito, recordando que hasta la constitución del 2010 todos los textos constitucionales establecían que todos los nacidos en territorio nacional tenían derecho a la nacionalidad, con la excepción de los hijos de diplomáticos y personas en tránsito, lo que se interpretaba como de paso, no los que legal o ilegalmente se quedan en el territorio nacional.

    Han objetado la sentencia los doctores Eduardo Jorge Prats, Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez, Olivo Rodríguez Huerta, Luis Gómez y Ramón Antonio Veras. La han respaldado el director general de migración, así como por el Cardenal Nicolás López Rodríguez y Monseñor Agripino Núñez Collado. En cambio el obispo emérito de la iglesia Episcopal, Telésforo Isaac, la ha condenado en los términos más enérgicos.

    La Irretroactividad de la ley.

    Todavía hay mucha confusión, pero de lo que trató la sentencia no es del derecho que tienen los descendientes de haitianos u otra nacionalidad, cuyos padres sean ilegales a ser declarados como dominicanos. Eso quedó proscrito en la Constitución del 2010, que en su articulo 18 numeral 3 estableció la restricción a los residentes ilegales.

    De lo que se trata es de despojar de la nacionalidad a miles de personas descendientes de haitianos que fueron inscritos en el registro civil cuando bastaba haber nacido en el país. Muchos de ellos tienen décadas de haber sido aceptados como dominicanos. Ellos no se inscribieron, sino que fueron inscritos, y en estricto derecho no se le puede aplicar retroactivamente la exclusión a los ilegales establecida en la constitución del 2010, ni tampoco la ley de migración del 2004.

    La constitución del 2010 en su artículo 18 numeral 2 indica que son dominicanos y dominicanas “quienes gocen de la nacionalidad dominicana antes de la entrada en vigencia de ésta constitución”. Y el artículo 110 establece que ¨ La ley solo dispone y se aplica para el porvenir, no tiene efecto retroactivo sino cuando sea favorable al que esté subjúdice o cumpliendo condena. En ningún caso los poderes públicos o la ley podrán afectar o alterar la seguridad jurídica derivada de situaciones establecidas conforme a una legislación anterior.

    La Corte Interamericana

    En su sentencia del 2005 cuando conoció el caso de dos niñas descendientes de haitianos a las que el estado se había negado a reconocer como dominicanas a pesar de que sus madres ya tenían cédula y documentación nacional, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos dispuso que fueran inscritas y compensadas por el Estado.

    En su sentencia la CIDH dejó establecido que los hijos no pueden heredar la ilegalidad de sus padres. Textualmente indicó que “El estatus migratorio de una persona no se transmite a sus hijos”, y que “La condición de nacimiento en el territorio del estado es la única a ser demostrada para la adquisición de la nacionalidad”.

    Para deshacer el alegato que equipara como persona en transito a todos los inmigrantes, la CIDH recordó el propio Reglamento de Migración de la República Dominicana número 279 de 1939, que fija un máximo de 10 días para considerar transeúnte por el territorio nacional a un extranjero.

    El Argumento de que los inmigrantes residentes por largo tiempo en el país están en tránsito es rebatido por las dos magistradas que emitieron votos disidentes. Citan que la CIDH estableció que “Para considerar a una persona como transeúnte o en tránsito, independientemente de la clasificación que se utilice, el Estado debe respetar un limite temporal razonable, y ser coherente con el hecho de que un extranjero que desarrolla vínculos en un Estado no puede ser equiparado a un transeúnte o a una persona en tránsito ¨. La corte estableció además que “En un sistema de jus soli, sólo hace falta el hecho de que un niño o niña haya nacido en el territorio del Estado, y que la condición migratorio de sus padres no puede ser una condición para el otorgamiento de la nacionalidad, exigir la prueba de la misma, constituye una discriminación”.

    Esta sentencia deja abierta la vía para que el caso sea llevado a la CIDH, que si ya dispuso dos inscripciones con más razón dictaminará contra el despojo de la ciudadanía a miles que hasta por ocho décadas se les había otorgado, y en momentos en que en Estados Unidos se busca legalizar, con opción a la ciudadanía, a 12 millones de inmigrantes ilegales, más de cien mil de ellos dominicanos. El proceso llevará tiempo, pero mientras tanto el genocidio civil, seguirá penalizando a millares de personas, aunque cada vez será más rechazado en los ámbitos de los derechos humanos al ocurrir en un país que tiene en el exterior cerca de millón y medio de emigrantes.
    Panorama Diario: El Constitucional ignora la Corte Interamericana

  9. #7
    Platinum
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    here is a google/gargled translation of the Diaz article

    The Constitutional Court ignores the American
    By Juan Bolivar Diaz

    Santo Domingo . - The Constitutional Court ( TC ) not only denied pursuant to a citizen who requested , but not declared Dominican and went away to arrange a crawl since 1929 ( 84 years ) to strip citizenship to babies and civil -registered in at least three generations , if their parents were illegal immigrants .
    The ruling, challenged by two judges and constitutional experts , clashes with the opinion of the 2005 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR ) , binding to the Dominican , that rejects those who reside long in the country are in transit and that the illegality to be inherited by the children .
    A landmark judgment
    As had advanced two of its members , the TC evacuated a sentence that will make history as a legal monstrosity that seeks the stripping of citizenship to tens of thousands of people for 8 decades were recorded as Dominicans , under the constitution and laws force.
    The court met a request under Mrs. Juliana Deguis Pierre , born in Yamasá in 1984 ( 29 years ago ) , and declared by Haitian parents , who since 2008 , the Central Electoral Board ( JCE ) denied copy of birth certificate with which he tried to obtain an identity card , declaring it as dead and leaving Dominican civil with several thousand descendants of Haitians.
    Although in the same judgment recognized that the case was a matter of the Administrative Court , and at least 4 opinions contradicting themselves in their two years of operation , the TC decided to meet the request , " to ensure judicial economy " but surpassed request of the appellant , did not rule on the legality or illegality of the refusal of the copy of the birth certificate , and also ruled on the nationality of thousands.
    The court implicitly recognized the illegality of record retention by providing that the JCE issued the document to Mrs. Pierre while referral " to the appropriate court to determine the validity or invalidity " Because the sentence is based on the appellant is the daughter of " people in transit " category of all Dominican constitutions since 1929 , directs the JCE conduct a thorough audit of the books of the civil registry "to identify and integrate into a documentary list " all foreigners from that year " irregularly are enrolled because they lack the conditions instituted by the constitution. That list shall be incorporated into the new books of foreign birth record " .
    Will be tens of thousands
    This audit will be a difficult task to perform in one year, extendable to two , and stumble with the fact that many books are missing or damaged registration . They will have to track the more than ten million people , including those born after 1929 who have died. If only chase intruders Haitians , the task is less difficult , surnames looking for French or patois . The Chinese and English will be less . The Spanish can not be detected without a reading of the record to determine the respondents.
    One of the merits of the judgment is that it confirms the estimate of about 20 000 affected by the resolution of the JCE when your page 39 cites a table in 16 000 945 quantifies the record submitted by the Department of Inspections and research body in 4000 836 the investigation and returned. Dear Dr. Jose Angel Aquino covered only those born after 1984 . Since 1929 will be tens of thousands , though many should be sought in cemeteries.
    In many cases there will be three or even four generations of people from the same family tree "illegal residents " , that would constitute a true apartheid would continue transmitting the illegality to their descendants. They will have to tell him that people are not Dominicans to 80 years who were born in the country , in a retroactive application of a new interpretation of the Constitution



    Fundamental objections .

    The statement was signed by eleven of the thirteen judges of the constitutional court presiding jurist Milton Ray Guevara. The doctors Isabel Bonilla and Katia Miguelina Jimenez Hernandez left his objections in writing papers respectively fifteen and thirty pages , which reject the basic approach of the majority, it is null any birth registration done by illegal immigrants since 1929.

    The two judges took refuge in the judgment of 2005 issued by the Commission arguing that bind the Dominican State. Bonilla stated that in accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the American Convention on Human Rights , "States parties recognize that the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are final and binding and can not be challenged or reviewed internally " .

    Both the two judges as constitutional law experts dispute the interpretation of the constitutional articles judgment concerning nationality. Specifically the argument that migrant workers are in transit , remembering that until the constitution of 2010 all constitutions established that all those born in national territory had the right to nationality, with the exception of the children of diplomats and people in transit , what was interpreted as the way, not legally or illegally to remain in the country.

    They objected to the sentence the doctors Eduardo Jorge Prats , Cristóbal Rodríguez Gómez , Olivo Rodriguez Huerta , Luis Gomez and Ramon Antonio Veras. Have endorsed the CEO of migration and by Cardinal Nicolas Lopez Rodriguez and Monsignor Agripino Nunez Collado . Instead the retired bishop of the Episcopal Church , Telésforo Isaac , has condemned in the strongest terms .

    The retroactivity of the law.

    There are still a lot of confusion , but of what the sentence is not treated the right of Haitian descent or another nationality, whose parents are illegal to be declared as Dominicans. That was outlawed in the Constitution of 2010, which in article 18 paragraph 3 established the restriction to illegal residents .

    Of what it is to strip citizenship to thousands of persons of Haitian descent who were enrolled in the registry office when it was enough to have been born in the country. Many have decades of being accepted as Dominicans. They did not join , but were registered , and in strict law can not be applied retroactively to the illegal exclusion established in the constitution of 2010 , nor the Migration Act 2004.

    The Constitution of 2010 in Article 18, numeral 2 indicates that Dominicans are " those exercising Dominican nationality before the entry into force of this Constitution." And Article 110 states that ¨ The law only provides and applies to the future , not retroactive but when it is favorable to matter subject to judgment or serving sentences. In any case, the government or the law may affect or alter the legal certainty through situations established under previous legislation .

    The Court

    In its judgment in 2005 when he met for two girls of Haitian descent to which the state refused to recognize as Dominicans despite their mothers already had national identity card and documentation , the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that they were registered and compensated by the state.

    In its decision the Commission made ​​it clear that the children can not inherit the illegality of their parents. Literally said " The person's immigration status is not transmitted to their children " and that "The condition of birth in the territory of the state is the only one to be demonstrated for the acquisition of nationality ."

    To undo the allegation that equates as a person in transit to all immigrants , the Commission recalled the Regulation of Migration of the Dominican Republic number 279 of 1939 , which sets a maximum of 10 days to consider passer by a foreign country .

    The argument that immigrants residing for a long time in the country in transit is disputed by the two judges who cast dissenting votes . They cite that the IACHR stated that " To consider a person as a transient or in transit, regardless of the classification used , the State must respect a reasonable time limit , and be consistent with the fact that an alien who develops links in a State can not be equated to a bystander or a person in transit ¨ . The court further stated that " In a system of jus soli, only need the fact that a child is born in the territory of the State, and that their parents' immigration status can not be a condition for the granting of the nationality, require proof of the same , constitutes discrimination . "

    This ruling leaves open the way for the case to come to the Commission , that if you ordered two inscriptions more so dictate against dispossession of citizenship to thousands who until eight decades had been granted , and at a time when in U.S. seeks to legalize , with option to citizenship to 12 million illegal immigrants, more than a hundred thousand of them Dominicans. The process will take time , but meanwhile civil genocide , will penalize thousands of people , but it will be increasingly rejected in the areas of human rights to occur in a country outside near a million and a half immigrants.
    Diario Panorama : The Constitutional Court ignores the American Court

  10. #8
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Ok, I wonder... mr. x kept in his house property the he had stolen, his son knew about it... and could not justify his father having the high price property

    then his father die, then comes the police, questions?

    is he entitled to the stolen property?

    why?

    because he had it for so many years?

    now even taking into consideration that the original owner of the property, did not protect the property [locking it] or

    that anyone could look at it, being kept in the front yard, [a moped for example]


    does such situation justify the robbery in the first place?

    If mr x - and many others- was a poor man, who were responsible? his gov, the previous colonial gov/metropolis, yes, who should resolve?

    Did I mention France or the USA?

  11. #9
    Bronze
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    511
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It will be expensive enacting the law

  12. #10
    Silver
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,987
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Empiric View Post
    Ok, I wonder... mr. x kept in his house property the he had stolen, his son knew about it... and could not justify his father having the high price property

    then his father die, then comes the police, questions?

    is he entitled to the stolen property?

    why?

    because he had it for so many years?

    now even taking into consideration that the original owner of the property, did not protect the property [locking it] or

    that anyone could look at it, being kept in the front yard, [a moped for example]


    does such situation justify the robbery in the first place?

    If mr x - and many others- was a poor man, who were responsible? his gov, the previous colonial gov/metropolis, yes, who should resolve?

    Did I mention France or the USA?
    This example does not apply. As long as robbery was a crime back then, and it remains a crime today.
    But that's not what is happening in the haitians case. They were legally dominicans back then, and now they are told they're not dominicans anymore.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •