The New Hatian Influx (True or False?)

[cavok]

Here's is another one:

[video=youtube;t7udsIXBfZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7udsIXBfZI[/video]

 

[CristoRey]

The influx of Haitians, especially in the Pedernales area, is causing a lot of violent confronttions with the local Dominicans there. The army is permanently stationed in that area. It doesn't get much play on the news because that's not the kind of the news the government wants. They are trying to make the SW part of the DR a tourist destination.

To the east in Bavaro, Hatians have almost completely overtaken the town of Veron. Here are some videos as reported by Dominican reporters:

[video=youtube;HFxBZvjsEgY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxBZvjsEgY[/video]

Someone should pull this fella aside and tell him that
all of these loans your corrupt politicians are receiving
from organizations like the IDB come with terms and conditions.
Globalization and open borders are very high up on the
liberal one happy world agenda so... perhaps he should
be reporting on that instead.

 

[NALs]

The benefits of DR citizenship were revoked retroactively when a law was changed that said these Dominicans were no longer Dominicans. Now 210,000 are stateless.

There’s nothing retroactive about the regularization plan. Since 1929 all Dominican constitutions clearly state that exclusions on granting Dominican citizenship upon birth applies to those born to foreign diplomats and those born to people on transit. The Dominican Supreme Court has always held the original meaning of ‘in transit’ as the legitimate meaning of the phrase in the constitution, which is anyone that’s in the DR with no legal permanent residence. That includes tourists, temporary legal workers, foreign students on a student visa, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, among others.

The constitution of 2010 was modified to explicitly mention illegal immigrants, but that’s redundant because illegal immigrants are already included in the ‘in transit’ part. The reason the Dominican legislators decided to create the redundancy was to take away one of the arguments pro-Haitian NGO’s were using against the DR in international courts. The pro-Haitian NGO’s often claimed that ‘in transit’ can’t include illegal immigrants and the DR was often sanctioned due to that, despite that the Supreme Court had stated that illegals are included in ‘in transit’ because they don’t have legal permanent residence. Once the constitution was modified to explicitly mention illegals, in effect taking away one of the tools the NGO’s would use against the DR, those same NGO’s began to claim that the constitution was changed to be applied retroactively. Despite their claims, the constant accusations they often made in international courts against the DR subsided because they can’t no longer claim that ‘in transit’ doesn’t include illegals, because the explicit mention of illegals makes the definition of ‘in transit’ completely irrelevant.

The other issue that makes your claim incorrect is that you either ignore or are not aware that in Dominican law an illegal act doesn’t produces legal rights. If someone enters the DR illegally and gets Dominican documentation that he’s not suppose to get (pay bribes, use false documents, etc), that makes his documents and the documents of his descendants completely voided. The original fraud needs to be corrected prior to any corrections in his descendants. This principle has always existed in Dominican law, as far as I know.