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

[mountainannie]

The phrase IN TRANSIT has been in the DR Constitution and has always been used for the purpose of excluding Hatian workers who were brought here for the Zafra.. the sugar cane harvest.. and then for the agriculture harvest.. the idea is that they are "migrant workers" and that they are not settlers. There are very few Haitians here who have a Dominican cedula and many of those have not been renewed .. on the bases that they were, essentially, fraudulently obtained, I suppose.

This is pretty interesting to watch.. it is sorta an odd thing.. The DR does not want the Haitian children here but gives all this help to the Haitian mothers, knowing that Haitian babies born here are not Haitians.. ??? why???

 

[NALs]

As usual, many people here on DR1 and elsewhere are commenting about recent decision from the Constitutional Tribunal (for now on will be referred to as TC, its initials in Spanish) without knowing fully what has taken place. I will try to clarify some points here, because many people here have not even read the actual sentence from the TC and have form their opinions based on third party information.

1. The TC didn?t dictate a new law, it simply re-clarified the meaning of ?personas en tr?nsito? in the Dominican constitution. The meaning of that term has been constant in all constitutions of the country and the Supreme Court has continuously upheld, without exception, the meaning that includes illegal residents and what implications this has for their kids born on Dominican soil.

2. The modification that was done in the 2010 general revision of the Dominican constitution, in which the terms ?illegal residents? was added, was not the imposition of a new law. It was an attempt to put an end to the abuse various NGOs had been doing every time they went to international organizations claiming the meaning of term ?personas en tr?nsito? was ambiguous, when in fact it wasn?t because the Supreme Court had multiple times clarified to the very same NGOs what that term means and who it included. In fact, most NGOs went to international organizations claiming that ?personas en tr?nsito? had an ambiguous meaning every time the Supreme Court would clarify to them the actual meaning of the term and they lost the cases. As such, in addition of ?illegal residents? in the 2010 constitution is not a new meaning, because illegal residents have always been included in ?personas en tr?nsito,? but rather a further clarification in order to put an end to the abuse by the NGOs whenever they would go to international organizations completely ignoring the meaning the Supreme Court had given to that term.

3. The recent sentence by the TC is not based on the Dominican constitution of 2010, but rather on the Dominican constitution of 1966, because that?s the constitution that was in effect in 1984, the year the Haitian woman that thought she was Dominican was born. The TC stated that all Dominican constitutions starting with the 1929 version to the latest one (2010) include, without exception, the term ?personas en tr?nsito? and that the term has always included or applied to ?illegal residents? and the implications this has for their nationality of their Dominican born children. In essence, anyone born on Dominican soil to ?personas en tr?nsito? as defined by the Supreme Court, is not entitled to Dominican nationality upon birth, but rather to the nationality of their parents.

4. There is no such thing as ?Dominicans of Haitian descent stripped of their Dominican nationality? because they were never Dominican. The immigration law clearly states that anyone that received Dominican migration or identity documentation in violation of what the law or the constitution states, will be treated as fraudulent documents and immediately becomes void. What this means is that even if a son of some that falls in the ?personas en tr?nsito? incorrectly receives Dominican identity papers when they should had received identity papers from their parents nationality because that?s the nationality the son (or daughter) inherited; those Dominican identity papers are fraudulent because they go against what the law and the constitution stipulates. As such, they were never Dominicans, they were simply lead to believe they were Dominican due to a careless situation at the time they were incorrectly given Dominican papers. As such, they were never Dominican and they could have never been born as Dominicans, because a legal right can?t be acquired from an illegal act. Also, the Haitian constitution clearly states that any son or daughter of a Haitian national is Haitian unless the parents renounce their Haitian citizenship. In the case of the lady currently in the courts, and hundreds of thousands of others, her parents were Haitian citizens, they never renounced Haitian citizenship, they were ?personas en tr?nsito?, and, as such, her daughter is also a Haitian national as per the Haitian constitution regarding the acquisition of Haitian citizenship via jus sanguini as well as the Dominican constitution regarding the acquisition of the parents nationality for children born to ?personas en tr?nsito?.

5. The TC added an extra lets say motion to the sentence by demanding that in 90 days a digitalized list of all the irregular births registered in Dominican records starting from 1929 (the first Dominican constitution to include the term ?personas en tr?nsito? and with the same legal definition it has today) up to 2010; so that all these people can be properly registered in the ?libro de extranjer?a? and their children be contacted and be given their proper documentation and identity. The purpose of this is for once and for all to put an end to the legal limbo that many Haitians and Dominican born Haitians find themselves in. All Haitians with fraudulent papers will be given their proper Haitian papers and then they will be given a specific time period to regulate their legal status as foreigners in the Dominican Republic. After the regularization, any kids they themselves have on Dominican soil will be entitled to Dominican citizenship upon birth, because that?s what the law stipulates.

That?s it. Everything else you might have read that gives another impression is wrong and should not be taken into account.

 

[NALs]

When it comes to the legal status of migrants in the Dominican Republic, their children also inherit that status and this is why its very important for all people illegally in Dominican soil to regulate their migration status. Its similar to debts acquired by parents, if these are not paid off by the time they die, their children will inherit them and are obligated by law to continue paying them.

Also in nature there are examples of situations new born inherits from their parents, such as kids born with AIDS thanks to their mother having AIDS. Its not really the fault of the kid that his mother was either unknowingly infected or was rather irresponsibly promiscuous. Either way, the kid inherits the condition of the mother.

Its a similar situation as per the Dominican migration and nationality laws.

 

[Castle]

Is it just by coincidence that you compare debt, AIDS, infections and promiscuity to the haitian citizenship? Just asking...

 

[jkc]

Some statements make you wonder where certain people have been living? It is beyond my brain and comprehension that PEOPLE keep referring INHERITANCE in terms of IMMIGRATION!
My dad was ILLEGAL, therefore, even though, i was born on the soil! Therefore i have to be ILLEGAL as well, despite the fact that i was accepted b4 as a citizen of that country?
THESE ARE FEBBLE MINDED STATEMENTS! Pure and simple! These statement do not belong in the CIVILIZED CONTEXT WE ARE LIVING! These are stone aged statements, medieval ones! Wow

 

[NALs]

Is it just by coincidence that you compare debt, AIDS, infections and promiscuity to the haitian citizenship? Just asking...

Pretty much, but what does this has to do with anything here?

We all know the only reason the decision of the TC has become controversial is because it concerns Haitians, because in early September two Syrians had their migration documents voided due to their irregular nature and then deported and no one made a big fuss about it despite that Syria is currently is a civil war. Not a single NGO, no UN, no foreign embassy recalling their ambassador, no media storm, and no threads dedicated to this in Dominican forums, no nothing. The government imposed what the law says and the Syrians had to go, end of story.

Migraci?n explica no ingreso de sirios - listindiario.com

Now imagine what the reaction would had been had those two Syrians been Haitians?

My dad was ILLEGAL, therefore, even though, i was born on the soil! Therefore i have to be ILLEGAL as well, despite the fact that i was accepted b4 as a citizen of that country?

In this example, you were never accepted as a citizen of the country because your documents were given to you against what the law stipulated. That voids those fraudulent documents and if they are voided, it means whatever they claimed you were has always been false.

The purpose of the Dominican nationality law is to discourage illegal immigration and to encourage those that are in the country illegally to regularize their status. The only foreigners who are entitled to Dominican citizenship upon birth as those born to legal permanent residents, all other types are ?personas en tr?nsito? and have always been one.

People can claim whatever they want, but what defines who gets what citizenship is the law and nothing else.

 

[NALs]

Is it just by coincidence that you compare debt, AIDS, infections and promiscuity to the haitian citizenship? Just asking...

Pretty much, but what does this has to do with anything here?

We all know the only reason the decision of the TC has become controversial is because it concerns Haitians, because in early September two Syrians had their migration documents voided due to their irregular nature and then deported and no one made a big fuss about it despite that Syria is currently is a civil war. Not a single NGO, no UN, no foreign embassy recalling their ambassador, no media storm, and no threads dedicated to this in Dominican forums, no nothing. The government imposed what the law says and the Syrians had to go, end of story.

Migraci?n explica no ingreso de sirios - listindiario.com

Now imagine what the reaction would have been had those two Syrians been Haitians?

My dad was ILLEGAL, therefore, even though, i was born on the soil! Therefore i have to be ILLEGAL as well, despite the fact that i was accepted b4 as a citizen of that country?

In this example, you were never accepted as a citizen of the country because your documents were given to you against what the law stipulated. That voids those fraudulent documents and if they are voided, it means whatever they claimed you were has always been false.

The purpose of the Dominican nationality law is to discourage illegal immigration and to encourage those that are in the country illegally to regularize their status. The only foreigners who are entitled to Dominican citizenship upon birth as those born to legal permanent residents, all other types are ?personas en tr?nsito? and have always been one.

People can claim whatever they want, but what defines who gets what citizenship is the law and nothing else.

 

[mountainannie]

Once again, Nals. the children of a Haitian born outside of Haiti do not have Haitian citizenship. This has been in Haitian Constitution since 1987.

Also, how is the JCE going to be able to determine if the status of the parents was regular? If they have no Domnican cedula number? That should be easy then.

So the children of Haitians who did not have a cedula who were born in this country since 1987 will be officially stateless persons and may then apply to the United Nations as official refugees.

That should quiet things down. right?

 

[mountainannie]

Also, the Haitian constitution clearly states that any son or daughter of a Haitian national is Haitian unless the parents renounce their Haitian citizenship. In the case of the lady currently in the courts, and hundreds of thousands of others, her parents were Haitian citizens, they never renounced Haitian citizenship, they were ?personas en tr?nsito?, and, as such, her daughter is also a Haitian national as per the Haitian constitution regarding the acquisition of Haitian citizenship via jus sanguini as well as the Dominican constitution regarding the acquisition of the parents nationality for children born to ?personas en tr?nsito?.

quote Nals

No. This is not correct

Haitian Constitution 1987 Haiti: Constitution, 1987

There have been amendments to this constitution but not to Article 11

One must be BORN in HAITI to have Haitian citizenship in Haiti.

Certainly among all those people involved in aiding all those Haitian mothers to give birth in the Dominican Republic over the years there were some that had read the Haitian constitution correctly.

This is the problem that you here in the DR are going to have to address. I do not know how you are going to do it. But not giving them papers and saying that they "are Haitian" is not going to be enough, I do not think.

Perhaps they will come up with a new permanent "in transit" card or something. I do not think that the Court would have only given them 90 days to do it if someone had not had a solution in mind.


Cada doce minutos nace haitiano en RD - ElNacional.com.do

 

[NALs]

I think Mountainannie is misinterpreting what the actual article in the Haitian constitution of 1987 says, which is this:

ARTICLE 11:
Any person born of a Haitian father or Haitian mother who are themselves native-born Haitians and have never renounced their nationality possesses Haitian nationality at the time of birth.

Unless you can find a clarification by the Haitian Supreme Court on what it means by ?native-born,? then it must be interpreted as someone who acquires Haitian citizenship upon birth and not necessarily through naturalization. All Haitians that acquire Haitian citizenship upon birth due to their parents being native-born Haitian citizens themselves must therefore be treated as ?native-born.?

Also, notice that in section C of Article 13 it states:

Continuous residence abroad of a naturalized Haitian without duly granted authorization by a competent official. Anyone who loses his nationality in this manner may not reacquire it.

The fact that the Haitian constitutions treats naturalized Haitians in this way and not native-born Haitians, points towards a marked difference between the two concepts.

Also, while continuous residence abroad of a naturalized Haitian without duly granted authorization by a competent official results in losing Haitian nationality, this doesn?t applies to native-born Haitian citizens and it should not (unless otherwise noted) apply to their sons/daughters born abroad and who inherit the same nationality right as their parents.

Also, in Article 12-2 it states:

Haitians by naturalization shall be allowed to exercise the right to vote but they must wait five(5) years after the date of their naturalization to be eligible to hold public posts other than those reserved by the Constitution and by law for native-born Haitians.

This is evidence that Haitians by naturalization is different from native-born Haitians, and it says nothing that the sons/daughters of native-born Haitians are naturalized Haitians. As such, sons/daughters of native-born Haitians are probably accepted as native-born Haitians themselves.

Also, other countries have a similar wording. For example, the US Constitution makes a distinction between natural-born citizens and other types of US citizens, and there is an act that claims:

?The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.?

What the US considers natural born citizens is equivalent to the Haitian native-born citizens, considering that both grant the same special privileges that are denied to other types of citizens, such as the right to be president.

In lieu of a Haitian Supreme Court (or whatever they call their equivalent of the Supreme Court) clarification of what it means with ?native-born? and to whom it applies, it?s of most prudence to assume that the children of native-born Haitians inherit the full Haitian citizenship upon birth and not a modified version. Also the fact that the Haitian constitution claims that sons/daughters of all native-born Haitians inherit Haitian citizenship upon birth, there's no reason to believe that those offsprings would not inherit the exact same Haitian citizenship of their parents and then they, as native-born Haitian citizens, wouldn't confer the exact same Haitian citizenship to their own children and their children's children, etc. or until one of them renounces Haitian citizenship.

Despite all of that, the Haitian Constitution of 1987 can?t be used as reference for the case of the lady currently in Dominican courts, because she was born in 1984.

 

[Castle]

We all know the only reason the decision of the TC has become controversial is because it concerns Haitians, because in early September two Syrians had their migration documents voided due to their irregular nature and then deported and no one made a big fuss about it

Could it be that nobody said anything because those two sirians were not born in the DR or because they never had DR citizenship?

How could a new interpretation or "clarification" of the law be retroactive? If there was a loophole in DR constitution, nobody else has to pay for that. And it's not like they committed fraud, their papers were official and legal. Back then, of course, not legal anymore. Go figure.
DR, the country where the easy is hard, the hard is impossible and the impossible is easy.

 

[mountainannie]

Nals.. the French says Poss?de la Nationalit? Ha?tienne d'origine, tout individu n? d'un p?re ha?tien ou d'une m?re ha?tienne qui eux-m?mes sont n?s Ha?tiens et n'avaient jamais renonc? ? leur nationalit? au moment de la naissance.

There would be no need to include the phrase Qui eu meme sont nes Haitiens.. if it did not mean born in Haiti

but certainly the DR has a right to push up against Haiti for a clarification of this article and for Haiti to issue birth certificates and citizenship papers for all the thousands of children born here since 1929/

I suspect that there might be so many of them when they get through that might ask for some territory to go along.. like say

San Juan de Maguana.. which, well, ya gotta admit, it pretty dark skinned anyway..

They can maybe form a new country.. since lots of these folks who are supposedly Haitians cannot speak a word of Kreyole.

 

[mountainannie]

Nals.. the Haitian Constitution of 1964 was in force during that time and I posted it on another forum I think that we have two threads on this

In the 1964 Haitian Constitution the wording is very different

Haitian Constitution 1964
Title 2 chapter 1 Article 4
Any person born of a native born Haitian father shall be considered a native born Haitian. Any person born in Haiti of an unknown father, but whose mother is native-born Haitian, shall also be considered a native born Haitian

So while for the people born before 1987, there is a clear Constitutional right for Haitian citizenship, after 1987, there is not.

Now obviously, the DR should not bear the burden for Haiti having changed ITS constitution and revoking citizenship of the chidren of the diaspora.. and I have posted this on the English Haiti list serv in response to a call to protest in front of Dominican Embassies.

However, the fact that the DR does issue easy worker's visas to hundreds if not thousands of Haitian workers and does spend a great deal of money in assisting Haitian mothers in giving birth here to children of dubious civil rights.. is an issue.

OK. the DR wants the workers. Fine. And offers humanitarian aid in the form of public health.. good? not so good? who knows? But also then allows the kids six years of free education without papers. All sooo much more than they are going to get in Haiti. Then they want to go to high school, open a bank account, have a legal identity, and the DR says.. wait, no,. you are in transit only. you are only migrant workers. You are Haitian.

I can see why some people could get confused. Seems like mixed messages.

 

[NALs]

Could it be that nobody said anything because those two sirians were not born in the DR or because they never had DR citizenship?

I think no one said anything because they were not Haitians. Had they been Haitian, everyone would be judging every single word emitted by the authorities in order to find some sort of inconsistency or even misuse the erroneous public opinion on a legal matter or the complete ignorance by foreign institution of what the Dominican constitution says as per the Supreme Court.

It can’t have been because they never had DR citizenship, but all the Haitians affected with the citizenship problem themselves never had it. All the documents that claimed they had it were acquired in complete contradiction to what the law claims and as such, their documents are void and they never had Dominican citizenship, they have been foreigners on Dominican soil, in this case Haitian citizens.

How could a new interpretation or "clarification" of the law be retroactive?

Its not a new interpretation or clarification, its simply a re-clarification of the same interpretation that has been given to ‘personas en tr?nsito’ since the day it was in included in the first constitution of 1929 and every single constitution thereafter.

The Supreme Court, in this case the Constitutional Tribunal, has had to repeatedly re-clarify what ‘personas en tr?nsito’ means because the various NGOs are constantly claiming that ‘personas en tr?nsito’ is too ambiguous, when in fact it has not been ambiguous. The Supreme Court has told them multiple times what it means and in every single time the NGOs completely ignore the meaning. Then, when they lose their case in the Dominican Supreme Court, they go to international organizations claiming that ‘personas en tr?nsito’ is ambiguous after every single time[/b] the Dominican Supreme Court re-clarifies what it means.

Ambiguous is not a term that should be applied to words that have had their meanings clarified and then re-clarified multiple times. Also, a re-clarification is not a new clarification, its simply reaping the same thing over and over and over again. The meaning remains the same from 1929 to today.

And it's not like they committed fraud, their papers were official and legal. Back then, of course, not legal anymore. Go figure.

Their papers were never legal because the sons/daughters of foreigners that are not legal permanent residents aka personas en tr?nsito are not born as Dominican citizens, but rather as citizens of their country of origin aka their parent’s citizenship.

Any Dominican papers given to people in such situation are illegal and illegitimate from the day they are given to them. The situation goes to court when an official becomes aware of the inconsistency between the legal status of their parents and that they hold Dominican papers, when they should had never been given these papers. This situation could arise in various ways such as paying bribes, carelessness on the part of officials, etc.

Dominican jurisprudence doesn’t accepts that a legal right can be conferred on an illegal act.

 

[mountainannie]

So am I correct in that all the JCE has to do is go through all the birth records since 1929 and check that both the father and mother.. or at least the mother or father .. had a Dominican cedula number?

Did Dominicans have cedulas in 1929?

How does one determine if a cedula that was issued is illegal? I have a Haitian friend who was issued a Dominican cedula upon her graduation from USAD. Nothing illegal. She was given it by the State. Another who worked through the process for a cedula as any foreigner would, with a guarantor and all the copies of birth certificates and all. Is it now going to be that these are all simply declared illegal?

 

[Castle]

So am I correct in that all the JCE has to do is go through all the birth records since 1929 and check that both the father and mother.. or at least the mother or father .. had a Dominican cedula number?

Did Dominicans have cedulas in 1929?

How does one determine if a cedula that was issued is illegal? I have a Haitian friend who was issued a Dominican cedula upon her graduation from USAD. Nothing illegal. She was given it by the State. Another who worked through the process for a cedula as any foreigner would, with a guarantor and all the copies of birth certificates and all. Is it now going to be that these are all simply declared illegal?

And what can we say about the children born to underage dominican parents? They don't have a cedula either. Should the baby be deported until the parents get a dominican cedula?

And yes, NALs, maybe the sirians didn't make the news much because they were not haitians, and so there weren't any radical, racist, and intolerant forces behind that decision.

 

[NALs]

San Juan de Maguana.. which, well, ya gotta admit, it pretty dark skinned anyway..

Its good to know what is motivating you in all of this, but in the mean time the sons/daughters of Haitian migrants that did everything to become legal permanent residents and, as such, are not ?personas en tr?nsito? are enjoying their real and legally sound Dominican citizenship acquired upon birth. Seems to me skin color doesn?t matter considering that Haitians that migrated to the DR the correct way have not burdened their kids with what the lady currently in the court is facing. That?s the difference between responsible migration vs an irresponsible or careless one and these situations are the responsibility of each migrant to sort out before they die. Otherwise their beloved children will be facing a tough legal battle.

They can maybe form a new country.. since lots of these folks who are supposedly Haitians cannot speak a word of Kreyole.

This is a legal issue and in such issues, only whatever the law states is taken into account. Everything else is used in the media and by civilians in order to sway public opinion, but none of that is taken into account in jurisprudence.

If non-legal situations were to be taken into account in the application of laws, then murderers that are also good fathers would never have the laws applied to them, wonderful professionals that batter their wives would never have anti-battering laws applied against them, uncles with flawless reputations that rape their nieces would not have the laws imposed on them because of qualities that go beyond the legal sphere.

In the 1964 Haitian Constitution the wording is very different

Haitian Constitution 1964
Title 2 chapter 1 Article 4
Any person born of a native born Haitian father shall be considered a native born Haitian. Any person born in Haiti of an unknown father, but whose mother is native-born Haitian, shall also be considered a native born Haitian

So while for the people born before 1987, there is a clear Constitutional right for Haitian citizenship, after 1987, there is not.

And as such, it must be assume that anyone that inherits the citizenship of their parents, inherits the exact same citizenship, unless otherwise is stated in the Haitian constitution.

However, the fact that the DR does issue easy worker's visas to hundreds if not thousands of Haitian workers and does spend a great deal of money in assisting Haitian mothers in giving birth here to children of dubious civil rights.. is an issue.

This is a non-issue because the only foreigners who can give birth to Dominican citizens are legal permanent residents, any foreigner that is not a legal permanent resident will give birth to a kid of their own nationality. Temporary work visas is not legal permanent residents, illegal immigrants are not legal permanent residents, business tourists are not legal permanent residents, etc.

OK. the DR wants the workers. Fine. And offers humanitarian aid in the form of public health.. good? not so good? who knows? But also then allows the kids six years of free education without papers. All sooo much more than they are going to get in Haiti. Then they want to go to high school, open a bank account, have a legal identity, and the DR says.. wait, no,. you are in transit only. you are only migrant workers. You are Haitian.

They will be in that situation as long as either their parents or, in case of their death, they themselves regularize their legal status and regularization is not acquiring documents in violation of what the law states, because then those documents are void and the original status before they got those documents remain.

 

[Naked_Snake]

Nals.. the French says Poss?de la Nationalit? Ha?tienne d'origine, tout individu n? d'un p?re ha?tien ou d'une m?re ha?tienne qui eux-m?mes sont n?s Ha?tiens et n'avaient jamais renonc? ? leur nationalit? au moment de la naissance.

There would be no need to include the phrase Qui eu meme sont nes Haitiens.. if it did not mean born in Haiti

but certainly the DR has a right to push up against Haiti for a clarification of this article and for Haiti to issue birth certificates and citizenship papers for all the thousands of children born here since 1929/

I suspect that there might be so many of them when they get through that might ask for some territory to go along.. like say

San Juan de Maguana.. which, well, ya gotta admit, it pretty dark skinned anyway..

They can maybe form a new country.. since lots of these folks who are supposedly Haitians cannot speak a word of Kreyole.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were to happen again, since very few people seem to remember that this country lost the Central Plateau (Valle de Guaba) in the "final" border treaty of the 1930's...

 

[Castle]

Dominican jurisprudence doesn’t accepts that a legal right can be conferred on an illegal act.

So I guess a baby born to a raped mother doesn't have the right to exist, since that baby is the consequence of an illegal act.

 

[mountainannie]

Well Nals, I guess there will be a test in of the Haitian Constitution when and if the DR decides to deport those tens of thousands of children of in transit Haitians who were born and raised here since 1987. I do not know how many there are. I do not know if any one does. Certainly it does seem that all this is a prelude to establishing the legal grounds to do that. And I am certain that Haiti will let them in, if only for the publicity.

I know that things are getting worse on the streets for the Haitians and cannot say that it bad thing. The consierge is going back to Haiti to renew his DR work visa at the DR embassy there. He cannot do it here. I told him that the Haitian Ambassador had been recalled and warned him that he might not get a visa.

That is the next step, isn't it? For the DR to stop issuing work visas?