I posted this within the legal forum, which is moderated. I will repost here.
Below is text in response to an editorial by a prestigious US paper which criticized the TC ruling on the basis of provable falsehood, and misleading statements. Other foreign media outlets and foreign organizations have done the same, unfortunately.
======================================
Sirs/Ladies:
Your editorial on a recent ruling by the Dominican Constitutional Court has many problems.
Your contention that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil" is plain false.
Although the 2010 constitution does explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth, all previous Dominican constitutions since 1929 explicitly excluded from automatic citizenship children from parents in certain categories, including those "de transito" (approximately, transient).
Hence, foreign parents must prove that their child was born on Dominican soil, and they were not "de transito". Illegal residents, especially those from neighboring Haiti, with no legal address or job in the DR, no real estate, etc could never prove non-transient status, and may not even be able to prove the child's birth inside the DR.
The ruling did NOT "revoke the citizenship" of the plaintiff, making her one of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent' left "stateless". She never qualified for Dominican citizenship. And no child of Haitian parents can possibly become stateless, because s/he automatically inherits Haitian citizenship, regardless of birth place.
Likewise, the ruling did NOT authorize the government to look for "people who no longer qualify for citizenship". Simply, if any non-qualifier got Dominican citizenship, by mistake or fraudulent means, the record must be set straight. Reasonable, no?
Your editorial is based on falsehood, and does not reflect careful thought and research. You have acted irresponsibly, by calling for measures against the Dominican people, without prior due diligence.
Thank you for your attention.
Virgo
P.S. Above is a digest. Full version with sources below.
=======================
Sirs/Ladies:
Your October 15 editorial on a recent ruling on citizenship eligibility by the Dominican Republic's Constitutional Court constitute a great disservice to (i) your readers, (ii) the Dominican people, and, most importantly, (iii) the truth. Your editorial contains direct material falsehood, and does not reflect careful thought and even superficial research on the very serious issues you address. Yet, you irresponsibly call for measures that may harm the Dominican people.
Your contention that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil" is plain false.
The Dominican constitution in force when the plaintiff was born, as well as all Dominican constitutions since 1929, explicitly excluded from automatic citizenship those born on Dominican soil from parents who were in certain categories. The central issue considered by the court was whether the plaintiff, as a child of illegal immigrants, fell on the excluded category. According to the Dominican Constitutional Court's interpretation of the Dominican constitution, the plaintiff is and has always been in fact ineligible for Dominican citizenship.
Did the court "revoke the citizenship" of the plaintiff, making her one of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent' left "stateless", as you suggest?. If you had studied the court's decision (freely available in Spanish for download) and done relevant research you would have known that the answer is "of course, not".
No court can possibly "revoke" the citizenship of someone who isn't a citizen. That much is obvious. The court simply confirmed that, as she had been told by other legitimate Dominican authorities, she never qualified for Dominican citizenship.
Furthermore, she could not possibly become stateless, for a very simple yet extremely powerful reason which you seem to ignore: according to the Haitian constitution in force at her birth (and nearly all Haitian constitutions), as any child with at least one Haitian parent, she automatically inherits Haitian citizenship, regardless of her place of birth. This also implies something equally relevant: Had she been a Haitian-born child of Dominican parents, she would not have qualified for Haitian citizenship, even if her Dominican parents had been legal long-time permanent residents of Haiti, because Haiti itself _only_ awards citizenship at birth on the basis of inheritance (and does not even accept dual citizenship!).
Thus, your statement that the ruling authorizes the government to look for "people who no longer qualify for citizenship" is also plain false. What the ruling says is that if people who did not qualify for Dominican citizenship, got it by mistake or through irregular or fraudulent means (as opposed to naturalization), the record needs to be set straight. You find that reasonable, don't you?
Since you seem so misinformed and uninformed, I will provide you with additional detail. The Dominican constitution has never awarded at birth Dominican citizenship to the children of those "de transito" or "en transito" in the DR. "De transito" relates to the English word "transient", or the phrase "in transit" but should not be translated out of context. The court's ruling makes clear on the basis of Dominican jurisprudence and other factors that in the context of the decision "de transito" or "en transito" is the equivalent of "non-immigrant resident" status in the US; that is, one who does not have legal permanent residence, such as tourists, students, migrant workers, etc.
Foreign parents claiming Dominican citizenship for their child must _prove_ that (i) the child was in fact born on Dominican soil, and (ii) that the parents were not in the DR "de transito". Legal permanent residents can normally easily prove both. However, illegal residents, by their own condition, would have great difficulty proving non-transient status (they have no legal address, no legal job, own no real estate, etc), and may not even be able to prove that the child was born on Dominican soil. This is particularly important in the case of Haitians, who can -- and do -- easily cross the border in and out of the DR with minimal o no control, and could claim that a Haitian-born child was born in the DR. All this further reinforces the court's opinion that the category "de transito" or "en transito" has always, since 1929, meant to include illegal residents (of any nationality, but especially from Haiti). This interpretation is also in agreement with previous decisions by legitimate Dominican administrative and judicial authorities, including the Dominican Supreme Court; that is, it breaks no new ground (which you also seem to ignore).
What the 2010 amendment to the Dominican constitution did was to explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic Dominican citizenship at birth. This amendment also explicitly states that only Dominican authorities can define what "en transito" means, for citizenship purposes.
You also seem unfamiliar with immigrants, when you suggest that Haitians born on the Dominican side of a small island (which is approximately the size of South Carolina) somehow manage to lose their parents' language and all connection with their relatives and culture on the Haitian side of the island, even though they could easily cross the border back and forth. I can assure you that the vast majority of US-born/raised Dominicans speak Dominican Spanish, keep in touch with their relatives in the island, are very familiar with Dominican culture -- even if they have never visited the DR -- and would fit right in the DR. There is no reason to believe that Haitians born on the other side of a small island are any different.
Because Haitians are predominantly black, whereas Dominicans are predominantly of mixed heritage -- including a sizable minority of predominantly white people -- you may have assumed that this is in fact a racial issue. In fact, Dominicans have legitimate reasons to fear getting "taken over" (by force or otherwise) by Haiti. In the early 19th century, Haiti started out as the more prosperous and populous side, and officially defined itself as including the entire island, which they proclaimed "indivisible". Shortly after Dominicans became independent from Spain, Haitians took over the Dominican Republic by force, and ruled it with an iron fist for over two decades. In 1844, Dominicans fought and won their independence from Haiti, but over the next decades had to resist repeated Haitian military invasions, until Haitians finally gave up. Since then, Haiti has retained a numerical population advantage (and a much higher population density) , and very large numbers of Haitians have, at one point or another, for various reasons, entered and/or remained in the DR without consent from the Dominican authorities (currently at least hundreds of thousands do so). The possibility that masses of Haitians occupy large portions of the DR, eventually gaining a working majority through their Dominican-born children on entire Dominican regions, or possibly the entire DR is by no means far-fetched. Those who have written the Dominican constitutions know all this, which further reinforces that the court's interpretation is consistent with the writers' intend.
You have injected yourself in an issue which is frankly none of your business, and has gone as far as calling for unspecified "pressure" on the Dominican people because you dislike a ruling by a legitimate Dominican court performing its constitutional duties to interpret the Dominican constitution. However, you have based your position on misinformation, misrepresentation, insufficient research, and material falsehood. You have in fact acted irresponsibly, and should not do so ever again.
Thank you for your attention.
Virgo
P.S. Sources:
Ruling: Sentencia TC/0168/13 | Tribunal Constitucional de la Rep?blica Dominicana
Earlier ruling by the Dominican Supreme Court:
http://www.idpc.es/archivo/1208337878FCI12SRD1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Chief Justice, Prof. Dr. Milton Ray Guevara (PhD in law from Niece, France):
Magistrado Presidente - Dr. Milton Ray Guevara | Tribunal Constitucional de la Rep?blica Dominicana
Dominican Republic: Constitutions
Haiti: Constitutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dominican_Republic
Below is text in response to an editorial by a prestigious US paper which criticized the TC ruling on the basis of provable falsehood, and misleading statements. Other foreign media outlets and foreign organizations have done the same, unfortunately.
======================================
Sirs/Ladies:
Your editorial on a recent ruling by the Dominican Constitutional Court has many problems.
Your contention that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil" is plain false.
Although the 2010 constitution does explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth, all previous Dominican constitutions since 1929 explicitly excluded from automatic citizenship children from parents in certain categories, including those "de transito" (approximately, transient).
Hence, foreign parents must prove that their child was born on Dominican soil, and they were not "de transito". Illegal residents, especially those from neighboring Haiti, with no legal address or job in the DR, no real estate, etc could never prove non-transient status, and may not even be able to prove the child's birth inside the DR.
The ruling did NOT "revoke the citizenship" of the plaintiff, making her one of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent' left "stateless". She never qualified for Dominican citizenship. And no child of Haitian parents can possibly become stateless, because s/he automatically inherits Haitian citizenship, regardless of birth place.
Likewise, the ruling did NOT authorize the government to look for "people who no longer qualify for citizenship". Simply, if any non-qualifier got Dominican citizenship, by mistake or fraudulent means, the record must be set straight. Reasonable, no?
Your editorial is based on falsehood, and does not reflect careful thought and research. You have acted irresponsibly, by calling for measures against the Dominican people, without prior due diligence.
Thank you for your attention.
Virgo
P.S. Above is a digest. Full version with sources below.
=======================
Sirs/Ladies:
Your October 15 editorial on a recent ruling on citizenship eligibility by the Dominican Republic's Constitutional Court constitute a great disservice to (i) your readers, (ii) the Dominican people, and, most importantly, (iii) the truth. Your editorial contains direct material falsehood, and does not reflect careful thought and even superficial research on the very serious issues you address. Yet, you irresponsibly call for measures that may harm the Dominican people.
Your contention that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil" is plain false.
The Dominican constitution in force when the plaintiff was born, as well as all Dominican constitutions since 1929, explicitly excluded from automatic citizenship those born on Dominican soil from parents who were in certain categories. The central issue considered by the court was whether the plaintiff, as a child of illegal immigrants, fell on the excluded category. According to the Dominican Constitutional Court's interpretation of the Dominican constitution, the plaintiff is and has always been in fact ineligible for Dominican citizenship.
Did the court "revoke the citizenship" of the plaintiff, making her one of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent' left "stateless", as you suggest?. If you had studied the court's decision (freely available in Spanish for download) and done relevant research you would have known that the answer is "of course, not".
No court can possibly "revoke" the citizenship of someone who isn't a citizen. That much is obvious. The court simply confirmed that, as she had been told by other legitimate Dominican authorities, she never qualified for Dominican citizenship.
Furthermore, she could not possibly become stateless, for a very simple yet extremely powerful reason which you seem to ignore: according to the Haitian constitution in force at her birth (and nearly all Haitian constitutions), as any child with at least one Haitian parent, she automatically inherits Haitian citizenship, regardless of her place of birth. This also implies something equally relevant: Had she been a Haitian-born child of Dominican parents, she would not have qualified for Haitian citizenship, even if her Dominican parents had been legal long-time permanent residents of Haiti, because Haiti itself _only_ awards citizenship at birth on the basis of inheritance (and does not even accept dual citizenship!).
Thus, your statement that the ruling authorizes the government to look for "people who no longer qualify for citizenship" is also plain false. What the ruling says is that if people who did not qualify for Dominican citizenship, got it by mistake or through irregular or fraudulent means (as opposed to naturalization), the record needs to be set straight. You find that reasonable, don't you?
Since you seem so misinformed and uninformed, I will provide you with additional detail. The Dominican constitution has never awarded at birth Dominican citizenship to the children of those "de transito" or "en transito" in the DR. "De transito" relates to the English word "transient", or the phrase "in transit" but should not be translated out of context. The court's ruling makes clear on the basis of Dominican jurisprudence and other factors that in the context of the decision "de transito" or "en transito" is the equivalent of "non-immigrant resident" status in the US; that is, one who does not have legal permanent residence, such as tourists, students, migrant workers, etc.
Foreign parents claiming Dominican citizenship for their child must _prove_ that (i) the child was in fact born on Dominican soil, and (ii) that the parents were not in the DR "de transito". Legal permanent residents can normally easily prove both. However, illegal residents, by their own condition, would have great difficulty proving non-transient status (they have no legal address, no legal job, own no real estate, etc), and may not even be able to prove that the child was born on Dominican soil. This is particularly important in the case of Haitians, who can -- and do -- easily cross the border in and out of the DR with minimal o no control, and could claim that a Haitian-born child was born in the DR. All this further reinforces the court's opinion that the category "de transito" or "en transito" has always, since 1929, meant to include illegal residents (of any nationality, but especially from Haiti). This interpretation is also in agreement with previous decisions by legitimate Dominican administrative and judicial authorities, including the Dominican Supreme Court; that is, it breaks no new ground (which you also seem to ignore).
What the 2010 amendment to the Dominican constitution did was to explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic Dominican citizenship at birth. This amendment also explicitly states that only Dominican authorities can define what "en transito" means, for citizenship purposes.
You also seem unfamiliar with immigrants, when you suggest that Haitians born on the Dominican side of a small island (which is approximately the size of South Carolina) somehow manage to lose their parents' language and all connection with their relatives and culture on the Haitian side of the island, even though they could easily cross the border back and forth. I can assure you that the vast majority of US-born/raised Dominicans speak Dominican Spanish, keep in touch with their relatives in the island, are very familiar with Dominican culture -- even if they have never visited the DR -- and would fit right in the DR. There is no reason to believe that Haitians born on the other side of a small island are any different.
Because Haitians are predominantly black, whereas Dominicans are predominantly of mixed heritage -- including a sizable minority of predominantly white people -- you may have assumed that this is in fact a racial issue. In fact, Dominicans have legitimate reasons to fear getting "taken over" (by force or otherwise) by Haiti. In the early 19th century, Haiti started out as the more prosperous and populous side, and officially defined itself as including the entire island, which they proclaimed "indivisible". Shortly after Dominicans became independent from Spain, Haitians took over the Dominican Republic by force, and ruled it with an iron fist for over two decades. In 1844, Dominicans fought and won their independence from Haiti, but over the next decades had to resist repeated Haitian military invasions, until Haitians finally gave up. Since then, Haiti has retained a numerical population advantage (and a much higher population density) , and very large numbers of Haitians have, at one point or another, for various reasons, entered and/or remained in the DR without consent from the Dominican authorities (currently at least hundreds of thousands do so). The possibility that masses of Haitians occupy large portions of the DR, eventually gaining a working majority through their Dominican-born children on entire Dominican regions, or possibly the entire DR is by no means far-fetched. Those who have written the Dominican constitutions know all this, which further reinforces that the court's interpretation is consistent with the writers' intend.
You have injected yourself in an issue which is frankly none of your business, and has gone as far as calling for unspecified "pressure" on the Dominican people because you dislike a ruling by a legitimate Dominican court performing its constitutional duties to interpret the Dominican constitution. However, you have based your position on misinformation, misrepresentation, insufficient research, and material falsehood. You have in fact acted irresponsibly, and should not do so ever again.
Thank you for your attention.
Virgo
P.S. Sources:
Ruling: Sentencia TC/0168/13 | Tribunal Constitucional de la Rep?blica Dominicana
Earlier ruling by the Dominican Supreme Court:
http://www.idpc.es/archivo/1208337878FCI12SRD1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Chief Justice, Prof. Dr. Milton Ray Guevara (PhD in law from Niece, France):
Magistrado Presidente - Dr. Milton Ray Guevara | Tribunal Constitucional de la Rep?blica Dominicana
Dominican Republic: Constitutions
Haiti: Constitutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dominican_Republic
