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

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
42,211
5,966
113
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
 

Castle

Silver
Sep 1, 2012
2,982
1
0
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...
 

jkc

New member
Jun 24, 2013
472
0
0
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!
 

jkc

New member
Jun 24, 2013
472
0
0
The Anglican Bishop Emeritus Dominican Tel?sforo 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 exarcerb? , tendency to despotism , inhuman indifference vis-? -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 Tel?sforo
Bishop Emeritus of the Anglican Church ( Episcopal) Dominican .
September 27, 2013
[ TR : JMD / RK ]Undo editsAlpha
 

jkc

New member
Jun 24, 2013
472
0
0
While some people are ignoring the fact, here is avery detailed article about the decision:

El Constitucional ignora la Corte Interamericana
Por Juan Bol?var D?az

Santo Domingo.- El tribunal Constitucional (TC) no s?lo neg? amparo a una ciudadana que lo solicitaba, sino que la declar? no dominicana y se fue lejos al disponer una rastreo desde el 1929 (84 a?os) 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 pa?s est?n en tr?nsito y que la ilegalidad sea heredada por los hijos.
Una sentencia hist?rica
Tal como hab?an adelantado dos de sus integrantes, el TC evacu? una sentencia que har? historia como un adefesio jur?dico que pretende el despojo de la nacionalidad a decenas de miles de personas que durante 8 d?cadas fueron registradas como dominicanas, al amparo de la constituci?n y leyes vigentes.
La corte conoci? una solicitud de amparo de la se?ora Juliana Deguis Pierre, nacida en Yamas? en 1984, (hace 29 a?os), 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 pretend?a obtener la c?dula de identidad, declar?ndola no dominicana y dej?ndola 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 dict?menes propios en sus dos a?os de vigencia, el TC decidi? conocer la instancia, “para garantizar el principio de econom?a procesal” pero sobrepas? la petici?n de la recurrente, no se pronunci? sobre la legalidad o ilegalidad de la negativa de la copia del acta de nacimiento, y adem?s dictamin? sobre la nacionalidad de millares de personas.
La corte reconoci? impl?citamente la ilegalidad de la retenci?n del acta al disponer que la JCE emita el documento a la se?ora 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 tr?nsito” categor?a de todas las constituciones dominicanas desde 1929, ordena a la JCE realizar una auditor?a minuciosa de los libros del registro civil “para identificar e integrar en una lista documental” a todo los extranjeros desde ese a?o “se encuentran irregularmente inscritos por carecer de las condiciones instituidas por la constituci?n. Ese listado deber? ser incorporado a los nuevos libros de registro de nacimiento de extranjeros”.
Ser?n decenas de miles
Esa auditor?a ser? una tarea bien dif?cil para realizarse en un a?o, prorrogable a dos, y tropezar? con el hecho de que muchos libros de registro est?n desaparecidos o da?ados. Tendr?n que rastrear entre m?s de diez millones de personas, incluyendo los nacidos despu?s del 1929 que han fallecido. Si s?lo perseguir?n intrusos haitianos, la tarea es menos dif?cil, buscando por apellidos de origen franc?s o patois. Los chinos e ingles ser?n menos. Los espa?oles no podr?n ser detectados sin una lectura del acta para determinar los declarantes.
Uno de los m?ritos de la sentencia es que confirma el estimado de unos 20 mil afectados por la resoluci?n de la JCE cuando en su p?gina 39 cita un cuadro que cuantifica en 16 mil 945 los expediente remitidos por la Direcci?n de Inspector?a del organismo para investigaci?n y en 4 mil 836 los investigados y devueltos. El estimado del doctor Jos? ?ngel Aquino s?lo abarcaba los nacidos despu?s de 1984. Desde 1929 ser?n decenas de miles, aunque muchos habr?a que buscarlos en los cementerios.
En miles de casos habr? tres y hasta cuatro generaciones de personas de un mismo tronco familiar “residentes ilegales”, que constituir?an un verdadero apartheid que seguir?a transmitiendo la ilegalidad a sus descendientes. Tendr?n que decirle que ya no son dominicanos a personas hasta de 80 a?os que nacieron en el pa?s, en una aplicaci?n retroactiva de una nueva interpretaci?n de la Constituci?n



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 Hern?ndez y Katia Miguelina Jim?nez dejaron por escrito sus objeciones en documentos de quince y treinta p?ginas respectivamente, donde rechazan el planteamiento fundamental de la mayor?a, de que es inv?lido 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 plante? que de conformidad con los art?culos 67 y 68 de la Convenci?n 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 ?mbito interno”.

Tanto las dos magistradas como los expertos en derecho constitucional rebaten la interpretaci?n que hace la sentencia de los art?culos constitucionales referente a la nacionalidad. Espec?ficamente el planteamiento de que los trabajadores inmigrantes est?n en transito, recordando que hasta la constituci?n del 2010 todos los textos constitucionales establec?an que todos los nacidos en territorio nacional ten?an derecho a la nacionalidad, con la excepci?n de los hijos de diplom?ticos y personas en tr?nsito, 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, Crist?bal Rodr?guez G?mez, Olivo Rodr?guez Huerta, Luis G?mez y Ram?n Antonio Veras. La han respaldado el director general de migraci?n, as? como por el Cardenal Nicol?s L?pez Rodr?guez y Monse?or Agripino N??ez Collado. En cambio el obispo em?rito de la iglesia Episcopal, Tel?sforo Isaac, la ha condenado en los t?rminos m?s en?rgicos.

La Irretroactividad de la ley.

Todav?a hay mucha confusi?n, pero de lo que trat? 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 qued? proscrito en la Constituci?n del 2010, que en su articulo 18 numeral 3 estableci? la restricci?n 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 pa?s. Muchos de ellos tienen d?cadas 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 exclusi?n a los ilegales establecida en la constituci?n del 2010, ni tampoco la ley de migraci?n del 2004.

La constituci?n del 2010 en su art?culo 18 numeral 2 indica que son dominicanos y dominicanas “quienes gocen de la nacionalidad dominicana antes de la entrada en vigencia de ?sta constituci?n”. Y el art?culo 110 establece que ? La ley solo dispone y se aplica para el porvenir, no tiene efecto retroactivo sino cuando sea favorable al que est? subj?dice o cumpliendo condena. En ning?n caso los poderes p?blicos o la ley podr?n afectar o alterar la seguridad jur?dica derivada de situaciones establecidas conforme a una legislaci?n anterior.

La Corte Interamericana

En su sentencia del 2005 cuando conoci? el caso de dos ni?as descendientes de haitianos a las que el estado se hab?a negado a reconocer como dominicanas a pesar de que sus madres ya ten?an c?dula y documentaci?n nacional, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos dispuso que fueran inscritas y compensadas por el Estado.

En su sentencia la CIDH dej? establecido que los hijos no pueden heredar la ilegalidad de sus padres. Textualmente indic? que “El estatus migratorio de una persona no se transmite a sus hijos”, y que “La condici?n de nacimiento en el territorio del estado es la ?nica a ser demostrada para la adquisici?n de la nacionalidad”.

Para deshacer el alegato que equipara como persona en transito a todos los inmigrantes, la CIDH record? el propio Reglamento de Migraci?n de la Rep?blica Dominicana n?mero 279 de 1939, que fija un m?ximo de 10 d?as para considerar transe?nte por el territorio nacional a un extranjero.

El Argumento de que los inmigrantes residentes por largo tiempo en el pa?s est?n en tr?nsito es rebatido por las dos magistradas que emitieron votos disidentes. Citan que la CIDH estableci? que “Para considerar a una persona como transe?nte o en tr?nsito, independientemente de la clasificaci?n que se utilice, el Estado debe respetar un limite temporal razonable, y ser coherente con el hecho de que un extranjero que desarrolla v?nculos en un Estado no puede ser equiparado a un transe?nte o a una persona en tr?nsito ?. La corte estableci? adem?s que “En un sistema de jus soli, s?lo hace falta el hecho de que un ni?o o ni?a haya nacido en el territorio del Estado, y que la condici?n migratorio de sus padres no puede ser una condici?n para el otorgamiento de la nacionalidad, exigir la prueba de la misma, constituye una discriminaci?n”.

Esta sentencia deja abierta la v?a para que el caso sea llevado a la CIDH, que si ya dispuso dos inscripciones con m?s raz?n dictaminar? contra el despojo de la ciudadan?a a miles que hasta por ocho d?cadas se les hab?a otorgado, y en momentos en que en Estados Unidos se busca legalizar, con opci?n a la ciudadan?a, a 12 millones de inmigrantes ilegales, m?s de cien mil de ellos dominicanos. El proceso llevar? tiempo, pero mientras tanto el genocidio civil, seguir? penalizando a millares de personas, aunque cada vez ser? m?s rechazado en los ?mbitos de los derechos humanos al ocurrir en un pa?s que tiene en el exterior cerca de mill?n y medio de emigrantes.
Panorama Diario: El Constitucional ignora la Corte Interamericana
 

mountainannie

Platinum
Dec 11, 2003
16,350
1,358
113
elizabetheames.blogspot.com
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 Yamas? 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 , Crist?bal Rodr?guez G?mez , 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 , Tel?sforo 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
 

Empiric

New member
Apr 24, 2013
470
0
0
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?
 

Castle

Silver
Sep 1, 2012
2,982
1
0
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.
 

bob saunders

Platinum
Jan 1, 2002
32,503
5,932
113
dr1.com
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!

Their sin was not going back to where their parent came from, as they had no legal status in the DR.
 

Castle

Silver
Sep 1, 2012
2,982
1
0
Their sin was not going back to where their parent came from, as they had no legal status in the DR.

But back then they were legal dominicans because they were born in DR. Not until 2010 was the legal status of the parents considered to be a requirement. Where's the sin?
 

Empiric

New member
Apr 24, 2013
470
0
0
"They were legally dominicans back then,"

really?

I may be overlooking the law... can you point to me in the right direction?, please quote the law or post a link to read it
 

Castle

Silver
Sep 1, 2012
2,982
1
0
I may be overlooking the law... can you point to me in the right direction?, please quote the law or post a link to read it

Of course you are, maybe because you didn't read the whole thread.
As per OP link:

"Until 2010, the Dominican Republic followed the principle of automatically bestowing citizenship to anyone born on its soil"

Weren't you here during the whole discussion back in 2010?


"La ley 95 de 1939,7 la cual estuvo vigente hasta 2004, en su art 10 refuerza el jus solis simple y dice "Las personas nacidas en la Rep?blica Dominicana son consideradas nacionales de la Rep?blica Dominicana, sean o no nacionales de otros pa?ses""

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituci%C3%B3n_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_Dominicana
 

Naked_Snake

Bronze
Sep 2, 2008
1,811
222
63
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...

Agreed. Specially since legislators are supposed to legislate towards the future, not the past. Speaking of which, the fact that the people of this extra tribunal can take laws and modify them at will without any kind of check should be worrisome by itself.
 

Empiric

New member
Apr 24, 2013
470
0
0
It will be expensive enacting the law

if you mean deporting haitians..., they dont really want to enact the law at this point in history...

at this poing all they want is to prevent them from voting in elections, they [DR] have not forgotten the "22 years" of the 19th century, with a hatian president in the whole island, not democratically of course
 

Empiric

New member
Apr 24, 2013
470
0
0
if you mean deporting haitians..., they dont really want to enact the law at this point in history...

at this poing all they want is to prevent them from voting in elections, they [DR] have not forgotten the "22 years" of the 19th century, with a hatian president in the whole island, not democratically of course

but if they have to, the DR armed forces can clean/sweep DR from ALL haitians, on the name/excuse/basis of national security in a matter of weekks
 

jkc

New member
Jun 24, 2013
472
0
0
Anyway, that is not good PR FOR DR


The UN to mull court ruling on Dominican nationality

Santo Domingo.- UN resident coordinator Lorenzo Jim?nez de Luis on Monday said the Constitutional Court ruling stating that the offspring born in the country of undocumented foreigners aren?t Dominican will be thoroughly reviewed, to determine whether it?s consistent with international treaties signed by the Dominican Republic.

He said after that analysis at UN headquarters in New York and Geneva, it will make a decision and recommend what it considers appropriate on the ruling.

"The United Nations system in Dominican Republic hasn?t set its position on the ruling, at the moment we are simply studying the coherence of that ruling with resolutions and international treaties signed by the Dominican Republic and how these cause and are consistent with the content of that sentence," the UN official said.

He said for the UN it?s of great concern that the immigrant population in the country which formerly had Dominican documents, could be left without any documentation for the reason.

Jimenez spoke after a meeting with Electoral Central Board president Roberto Rosario, along with the representatives of other entities of that agency, Mar?a de Jes?s Conde, Sonia V?squez and Gonzalo Vargas Llosa.

http://dominicantoday.com/dr/local/...to-mull-court-ruling-on-Dominican-nationality
 

Naked_Snake

Bronze
Sep 2, 2008
1,811
222
63
but if they have to, the DR armed forces can clean/sweep DR from ALL haitians, on the name/excuse/basis of national security in a matter of weekks

If they did that we would have the 82nd Airborne (or the MINUSTAH across the border) here in a matter of hours. Humanitarian crisis and all.
 

Empiric

New member
Apr 24, 2013
470
0
0
Agreed. Specially since legislators are supposed to legislate towards the future, not the past. Speaking of which, the fact that the people of this extra tribunal can take laws and modify them at will without any kind of check should be worrisome by itself.

the fact that anyone can break the law for decades does not mean the law does not apply anymore

before it was not politically neccessary to clarify the law, the situation did not seem to harm anyone

but after the earthquake in haiti things have changed

the fact the oldes democracy in america, usa, constitutionally allow anyone born in their soil to be an us citizen does not mean all constitutions in america are equal, just similar