Ambassador Anibal de Castro says US can learn from DR on immigration

jkc

New member
Jun 24, 2013
472
0
0
I have found the comments by the AMBASSADOR a bit funny! Therefore, i figured that i should share it!


Ambassador Anibal de Castro says US can learn from DR on immigration

In an op-ed piece published on Tuesday, 3 June in the Miami Herald, Dominican Ambassador in Washington Anibal de Castro highlights the historic citizenship and documentation reform legislation now being implemented in the Dominican Republic. The set of legislation began with Constitutional Court Ruling 168-13 that summarized decades of immigration rulings, to the Naturalization Law 169-14 that completed the government's framework for enacting transparent policy for registering national and immigrant residents.

"For decades the Dominican republic experienced significant gaps in registration, documentation and identification of residents and foreigners. These shortcomings hindered the country's ability to combat human trafficking, ensure the integrity of its territory and implement an effective and just migration policy," he said.

"When it comes to the highly contentious issues of immigration and citizenship, however, the United States might be able to glean some valuable lessons from the Dominican example," explained the ambassador of the Dominican Republic to the United States.

Undocumented individuals who are able to prove that they were born in the Dominican Republic are being given a 90-day period to register for a regular immigration status and enter the naturalization process. The procedures are free.

Dominican Republic delivers on immigration promise - Other Views - MiamiHerald.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jan 9, 2004
10,245
1,426
113
Undocumented individuals who are able to prove that they were born in the Dominican Republic are being given a 90-day period to register for a regular immigration status and enter the naturalization process. The procedures are free.

Dominican Republic delivers on immigration promise - Other Views - MiamiHerald.com


Anyone born in this country is a citizen by birth. No 90 day period to register and then begin the naturalization process. It's automatic.

Perhaps the ambassador should first find out US law...then write her piece about how the US can learn from DRimmigration.

Respectfully,
Playacaribe2
 
May 12, 2005
8,564
270
0
Anyone born in this country is a citizen by birth. No 90 day period to register and then begin the naturalization process. It's automatic.

Perhaps the ambassador should first find out US law...then write her piece about how the US can learn from DRimmigration.

Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

I wouldn't mind seeing the US change to at least 1 parent needs to be a citizen or legal permanent resident for a child to be a citizen at birth.
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
I wouldn't mind seeing the US change to at least 1 parent needs to be a citizen or legal permanent resident for a child to be a citizen at birth.

That would require changing the 14th Amendment; they can't even get their act together on an annual budget.
 
Aug 6, 2006
8,769
9
38
The US will never change the citizenship by birth clause in the Constitution. The public would not approve it.
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
The US will never change the citizenship by birth clause in the Constitution. The public would not approve it.

It'd be an interesting exercise. I wonder if there are enough Conservative-leaning states to reach the threshold of amending the Constitution.
 
Mar 1, 2009
941
142
0
The new law is basically FLIP OPEN THE GATES AND LET THEM ALL IN....This plan is horrible, it's really horrible.
You see the Haitian mobs fighting each like animals, and it's hundreds and hundreds of them, then you see an old italian guy in the middle. You see the odd group of chinese, two or three Europeans.
This is basically the ANEXATION of DR to Haiti.
All you who supported this, I hope you )*#$)*#)*$)#*$)#*)#*)@ for a long, long time you pieces of #)($&#T#(&RP(&@#&&P@!

LLLLLLLLLLLL CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
 

bronzeallspice

Live everyday like it's your last
Mar 26, 2012
11,008
0
36
Aug 6, 2006
8,769
9
38
The fact is that in 1864, the US encouraged immigration from Europe and the granting of citizenship to all who came and their children. The industrial expansion that followed the Civil War depended on immigrants from Europe, who adapter better to the cities of the North than rural Blacks or Whites could. Or at least that was what the men who controlled the country during the robber baron era believed.

The Supreme Court has declared that if you are born here, you are a citizen unless you are the child of diplomats. There is a loud but rather small minority that rails against "anchor babies" and such, but they are unlikely to get their way. As for dual citizenship, the US can grant citizenship, but it cannot take away foreign citizenship.
 

bronzeallspice

Live everyday like it's your last
Mar 26, 2012
11,008
0
36
You might be surprised, with the 11 million illegals in the country this could change pronto.

And with the country having a 17 trillion dollar deficit it would be ludicrous to grant auto
matic US citizenship. Where are the jobs for all these immigrants? Guaranteed they will be
lining up on the welfare line. That 17 trillion dollar deficit will soar.

Yes, that was way then to encourage migration, but now the US should control the immigration flow.

Australia and New Zealand some years ago both changed their laws and now children born in the
country (to illegals) are not granted automatic citizenship.
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
That is too bad. It is a bad policy.

Actually, the original reason was to enforce protections by law of the former slaves. The contention in the South was that they weren't citizens and did not deserve protection by state laws. The 14th not only granted citizenship by birth, but codified that citizens could not be selectively enjoy protection of the law from state to state. (the old "they're just former slaves/Indians/Chinese servants, no crime has been committed here" dodge)

At the time, it was the right thing to do. Who knew 200 years later it would be leveraged the way it's been for the past 30+ years?
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
The Supreme Court has declared that if you are born here, you are a citizen unless you are the child of diplomats. There is a loud but rather small minority that rails against "anchor babies" and such, but they are unlikely to get their way. As for dual citizenship, the US can grant citizenship, but it cannot take away foreign citizenship.

The US oath of citizenship specifically calls on the oath-taken to forswear any other nation's citizenship. I don't know how binding it is in other nations, but that's the process. I know a Canadian that became a perm US resident by marriage and refused to become a US citizen specifically for that reason.
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
So it looks like effort is being made to correctly define (interpret) the 14th Amendment.

From Wikipedia: (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
"The clause's meaning with regard to a child of legal immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent."
 

Jaime809

Bronze
Aug 23, 2012
1,152
0
36
It also occurs to me that the intent in reframing the citizenship standard is, in many ways, almost identical in purpose; to manage and mitigate one group of citizenship-seekers.