Pierre or Pie?

[Lambada]

Why were those 2 news stories run together? The threats to DNCD chief broke the night before last well in advance of the Sonia Pierre story. At that stage DNCD chief was doing the St. George & saying it was unimportant but he wouldn't confirm there were threats. Listin was late picking it up, some of the other papers had it earlier.

No-one checks timelines any more?

[aegap]

Does Mrs. Pierre works for Oxfam?

[A.Hidalgo]

I personally did not care for this poll but must admit the theme is timely and important. Maybe what turned me off was NALs OP, but that's beside the point. The Robert Kennedy Memorial comes out swinging back hard and asking for facts not rumors. The smear campaign is in full swing in the DR. No surprise there.


Robert F Kennedy Memorial

[NALs]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

I personally did not care for this poll but must admit the theme is timely and important. Maybe what turned me off was NALs OP, but that's beside the point. The Robert Kennedy Memorial comes out swinging back hard and asking for facts not rumors. The smear campaign is in full swing in the DR. No surprise there.


Robert F Kennedy Memorial

The big "fuss" here is whether or not Solain's parents were in the Dominican Republic as "in transit".

The basic question is whether her parents migrated to the DR illegally or as contracted temporary workers?

Was Solain born in the DR while her parents were "in transit"? There are constitutionally approved and supreme court clarified consequences of such situation.

According to The Open Society Institute, "Sonia Pierre's parents immigrated to the Dominican Republic from Haiti to seek a better life."

According to the same source, Mrs. Pie also stated that "Today, fourth- and fifth-generation members of this community—many of whom have never been to Haiti—do not enjoy the right to citizenship" in addition to "The Dominican constitution establishes that anyone born there is a citizen."

According to the Dominican Constitution,

"ART.11.- Son dominicanos:

Todas las personas que nacieren en el territorio de la República, con excepción de los hijos legítimos de los extranjeros residentes en el país en representación diplomática o los que están de tránsito en él."

(In English): "Dominicans are all peoples born on Dominican territory, with the exception of the legitimate children of foreign residents in the country with diplomatic representation or those who are in transit in the country."

Such statement in the Dominican constitution as has been interpreted by the supreme court contradicts the claim being made by Solain when she stated that "the Dominican constitution establishes that anyone born there is a citizen" as well as contradicts the RFK Memorial response when they stated that "what is certain is that hundreds of thousands of Dominicans of Haitian descent born in the Dominican Republic have been denied their rightful Dominican citizenship and nationality because of the government's insistence to continue a discriminatory birth registration system in defiance of their own Constitution and international human rights law."

-NALs

[A.Hidalgo]

Lets see "estan de transito", well a Haitian living in the DR for years is that considered "in transit"??

That words of the constitution is so arbitrary you can run a truck through it. The Inter-America Commission on Human Rights (OAS) thought so too, that is why the two little girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosica won their case.

[NotLurking]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

Lets see "estan de transito", well a Haitian living in the DR for years is that considered "in transit"??

That words of the constitution is so arbitrary you can run a truck through it. The Inter-America Commission on Human Rights (OAS) thought so too, that is why the two little girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosica won their case.

A.Hidalgo, you are mistaken. The case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico was not decided in their favor by virtue of ambiguity of the Dominican Constitution as you have state and no doubt would like us to believe. The Inter-American Count of Human Rights ruled in favor of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico because they were/are entitled under Article 11 of the Dominican constitution to Dominican citizenship by Jus Soli. In this case, the 'in transit' exception does not apply to either of these children, both are offspring of legal Dominican citizens. Dilcia Yean's mother, Leonidas Oliven Yean, is a Dominican citizen as can be verified by her national ID# (cedula) 090-0002085-0. Violeta Bosico's mother, Tiramen Bosico Cofi, can also be verified as a legal Dominican citizen by her national ID# (cedula) 090-0013603-0.

The circumstances that ultimately led this case to culminate in The Inter-American Court are complex but are not due to the 'in transit' exception as you assert. The case, however, does have a bit of everything else: neglect, discrimination, laziness, fear, misinformation and much, much more. What Dilcia and Violeta ultimately have, as was determined by The inter-American Court, is the right to be legally recognized as Dominican citizen by the state under Article 11 of the Dominican constitution.


The Dominican Constitution recognizes as Dominican citizens all persons born on Dominican territory with two exceptions: legitimate offspring of foreign diplomats and offspring of any person currently in transit. Jus Soli is therefore honored but with the exceptions noted in the Dominican Constitution as was previously pointed out by Nal.

You may argue that the 'In transit' exception to article 11 paragraph 1 is vague but the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic has made it clear that illegal aliens have no claim to Dominican citizenship under it.

As to interpretation of the Dominican constitution the Supreme Court of DR said:

Considerando, que el hecho de ser la Constitución la norma suprema de un Estado no la hace insusceptible de interpretación, como aducen los impetrantes, admitiéndose modernamente, por el contrario, no sólo la interpretación de la doctrina y la jurisprudencia sino la que se hace por vía de la llamada interpretación legislativa, que es aquella en que el Congreso sanciona una nueva ley para fijar el verdadero sentido y alcance de otra, que es lo que en parte ha hecho la Ley General de Migración núm. 285-04;

And about Article 11, in transit exception and illegal aliens:

Considerando, que, en efecto, cuando la Constitución en el párrafo 1 de su artículo 11 excluye a los hijos legítimos de los extranjeros residentes en el país en representación diplomática o los que están de tránsito en él para adquirir la nacionalidad dominicana por jus soli, ésto supone que estas personas, las de tránsito, han sido de algún modo autorizadas a entrar y permanecer por un determinado tiempo en el país; que si en esta circunstancia, evidentemente legitimada, una extranjera alumbra en el territorio nacional, su hijo (a), por mandato de la misma Constitución, no nace dominicano; que, con mayor razón, no puede serlo el hijo (a) de la madre extranjera que al momento de dar a luz se encuentra en una situación irregular y, por tanto, no puede justificar su entrada y permanencia en la República Dominicana, de lo que resulta que la situación de los hijos (a) de extranjeros nacidos en el país en las circunstancias apuntadas en la primera parte del artículo 11 de la Constitución, no es producto de consideraciones de raza, color, creencias u origen, sino del mandato expreso contenido en el señalado texto fundamental que exceptúa, desde la revisión constitucional de 1929, del beneficio de la nacionalidad dominicana, como se ha visto, no sólo a los hijos (a) de los que estén de tránsito en el país, sino también a los de extranjeros residentes en representación diplomática, lo que descarta que a la presente interpretación pueda atribuírsele sentido discriminatorio; que consecuentemente, no tiene este carácter la ley cuestionada por los impetrantes cuya acción, por tanto, carece de fundamento y debe ser descartada;

Notlurking

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by NotLurking

A.Hidalgo, you are mistaken. The case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico was not decided in their favor by virtue of ambiguity of the Dominican Constitution as you have state and no doubt would like us to believe. The Inter-American Count of Human Rights ruled in favor of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico because they were/are entitled under Article 11 of the Dominican constitution to Dominican citizenship by Jus Soli. In this case, the 'in transit' exception does not apply to either of these children, both are offspring of legal Dominican citizens. Dilcia Yean's mother, Leonidas Oliven Yean, is a Dominican citizen as can be verified by her national ID# (cedula) 090-0002085-0. Violeta Bosico's mother, Tiramen Bosico Cofi, can also be verified as a legal Dominican citizen by her national ID# (cedula) 090-0013603-0.

The circumstances that ultimately led this case to culminate in The Inter-American Court are complex but are not due to the 'in transit' exception as you assert. The case, however, does have a bit of everything else: neglect, discrimination, laziness, fear, misinformation and much, much more. What Dilcia and Violeta ultimately have, as was determined by The inter-American Court, is the right to be legally recognized as Dominican citizen by the state under Article 11 of the Dominican constitution.


The Dominican Constitution recognizes as Dominican citizens all persons born on Dominican territory with two exceptions: legitimate offspring of foreign diplomats and offspring of any person currently in transit. Jus Soli is therefore honored but with the exceptions noted in the Dominican Constitution as was previously pointed out by Nal.

You may argue that the 'In transit' exception to article 11 paragraph 1 is vague but the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic has made it clear that illegal aliens have no claim to Dominican citizenship under it.

As to interpretation of the Dominican constitution the Supreme Court of DR said:


And about Article 11, in transit exception and illegal aliens:


Notlurking

I understand what you so eloquently are saying. What I was trying to emphasize albeit awkwardly, is that the State's argument and through various government agencies (Civil Registry, The Prosecutor of Monte Plata District, Central Electoral Board) was categorizing them as "in transit" or more correctly their parents. Although as you correctly state that the "in transit" was not what decided the case in their favor, it was part of the argument the agencies mentioned above used to deny them their documents.

If you follow the link on the case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Paragraph #31 the State's use of the category of "in transit" of the constitution was brought up by the petitioners and was duly noted.

Dominican Republic 12.189 - Admissible

[NotLurking]

Originally Posted by A.Hidalgo

If you follow the link on the case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Paragraph #31 the State's use of the category of "in transit" of the constitution was brought up by the petitioners and was duly noted.

Dominican Republic 12.189 - Admissible

The claim by the petitioner that citizenship was denied to the children on the basis of the 'in transit' exception of article 11 is frivolous at worst and misleading at best. The record is noted simply because it was part of the petitioner's claim, nothing else. The noted record does not in any way corroborate or otherwise verify the claim.

The last sentence of paragraph 31, where the 'in transit' reference is made is inaccurate. The petitioner stretches the truth. First, the claim that, "... in the “bateyes” where people do not possess identity cards" is a blanket statement that obviously stretches the truth. Secondly this part, "...Haitian-Dominican workers to fall under the 'in transit'..." is just appalling and clearly demostrates that the petitioner has an axe to grind. If you are Haitian-Dominican than you are legally recognized as a Dominican citizen therefore the 'in transit' exception is irrelevant. If on the other hand you are not legally recognized as a Dominican citizen, you can NOT be Dominican anything! Therefore, the classification of 'Haitian-Dominican' as used by the petitioner is a misnomer and was used this way to obfuscate the real issue and further the 'citizenship for all' agenda regardless of the Dominican Constitution or the will of the Dominican people (as voiced by the Supreme Court of DR). ...the proverbial spit in your face attitude?

The fact is that the mothers of these children failed to register the birth in the time provided by law (60 day if in the city, 90 days for rural area) for normal registration. The law provides for late registration but it is a much more involved process that require more documentation and in many cases, several Dominican witnesses (with cedula) to certify in front of a notary public the birth of the child. The longer you wait to register the child the more difficult it becomes. In the case of Violeta about nine years later; of course things are going to be difficult!

NotLurking

[lem]

This, albeit, a longstanding debate contiues to be positive. Why? because while NotLurking is on point in reading Constitution, Suprememe Court and case law involed with te referenced case (two girls); and while it is abundantly clear the the DR must secure and protect against myriad posibilities for fraudulant claims to DR citizenship, the basic point made or infered by A. Hildago is clear: Rampant discrimination and injustice can be forcefully perpetuated in the name of "constitutions, legal interpretations and case law".

Of course, that is an obvious given, and it would seem that I have a knack for the obvious. It is also very obvious the plague of discrimination against Haitians in the DR - whatever the cause or rason.

Remember though, with regard to sheltering our consciences under the unbrella of "constitution, legal interpretations and case law", those too can be later "judged" as in error. As a quick reference, it took amendments to US Constitution to "correct" earlier "law" allowing ownership of another human being, and to then establish those human beings as US citizens (see 13th 14th 15th amendments.) Yet further, it took more "blood shed", fights, turmoil, sufferring - through USA 1960's civil rights "movement", to "even the playing field of justice further".

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by lem

This, albeit, a longstanding debate contiues to be positive. Why? because while NotLurking is on point in reading Constitution, Suprememe Court and case law involed with te referenced case (two girls); and while it is abundantly clear the the DR must secure and protect against myriad posibilities for fraudulant claims to DR citizenship, the basic point made or infered by A. Hildago is clear: Rampant discrimination and injustice can be forcefully perpetuated in the name of "constitutions, legal interpretations and case law".

Of course, that is an obvious given, and it would seem that I have a knack for the obvious. It is also very obvious the plague of discrimination against Haitians in the DR - whatever the cause or rason.

Remember though, with regard to sheltering our consciences under the unbrella of "constitution, legal interpretations and case law", those too can be later "judged" as in error. As a quick reference, it took amendments to US Constitution to "correct" earlier "law" allowing ownership of another human being, and to then establish those human beings as US citizens (see 13th 14th 15th amendments.) Yet further, it took more "blood shed", fights, turmoil, sufferring - through USA 1960's civil rights "movement", to "even the playing field of justice further".

Finally someone gets the gist of my post's. The problem of the Haitian migration to the DR is complex with no facile answers, but in the particular case of the girls OBFUSCATION was the MONDI OPERANDI.gre: