Editorial hypocrisy, misinformation, fallacies and falsehood
Diario Libre
The recent decision by the Dominican Constitutional Court has generated a great deal of attention from major news organisations. This includes prestigious newspapers some of which have dedicated editorials to the ruling, going as far as calling for "pressure" to be applied on Dominican authorities against the application of the ruling. Unfortunately the articles and even the editorials are based on one-sided compassion, incomplete or wrong information, deficient research, misrepresentations, fallacies, and even provable falsehood.
Editorial falsehoods
On 15-Oct-13, a Boston Globe (BG) editorial asserts that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil". On 30-Oct-13, a Los Angeles Times (LT) editorial asserts that "Until recently, ... anyone born in the [DR] was automatically eligible to be a citizen". On 30-Sep-13, an editorial by the Gleaner, Jamaica's oldest newspaper, additionally asserts that the ruling declared that "anyone born in the Dominican Republic after 1929, whose parents were not citizens of the country, are themselves not Dominican."
The cited statements are all provably false! Although the 2010 constitution does explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth (jus soli), all Dominican constitutions since 1929 explicitly excluded from jus soli parents in certain categories. However, this and the ruling have NO effect on anyone ever born to a legal permanent resident in the DR.
Editorial misrepresentations
The BG editorial implies that the ruling will "revoke the citizenship" of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent', resulting in "the creation of one of the largest groups of stateless people on the planet", since they "would be unlikely to qualify for Haitian citizenship". The LT editorial, entitled "Stateless in the Dominican Republic", adds that the ruling "apply the new [2010 constitution] ex post facto" and will "retroactively strip the citizenship of tens of thousands of Dominicans of Haitian descent...going back to 1929".
The cited statements are, at best, gross misrepresentations. The ruling dictates that according to all Dominican constitutions since 1929, those born to illegal residents, or to individuals in certain "transient" categories, have never qualified for Dominican citizenship at birth (jus soli), but for their parents' (jus sanguinis).
The ruling agrees with previous Dominican judicial and administrative decisions. For instance, the Dominican Supreme Court had previously argued that for as long as children born to parents in certain legal categories were excluded from automatic citizenship, those born to parents under illegal status needed to also be excluded, simply as a matter of judicial consistence: one should not gain legal benefits by falling outside the law.
No one can be stripped of a citizenship s/he never had. In fact, illegal residents have never had the documents required for a legal Dominican birth declaration. Hence, any birth certificate they may have obtained is necessarily invalid. But immigration errors, whether by mistake or mischief, are a problem in many societies, and must be corrected once discovered. Hence, the ruling did order an audit to identify all of those who may have been wrongly categorized as Dominicans.
Editorial double standards and hypocrisy
With their loud outcry against the ruling, the news media imply that the Dominican citizenship policy for children of illegal residents is exceptional. However, the Center for Immigration Studies states that 145 of 194 countries do NOT award automatic citizenship at birth to those born to illegal residents, and only 30 are confirmed to do so, with 19 whose policy is unknown. And illegal immigration is a problem in only a fraction of the 30 pure jus soli countries. Hence, if the plaintiff had filed suit for citizenship elsewhere under similar conditions, in most of the world the verdict had been the same as in the DR.
In fact many countries award citizenship only to children born to their own citizens (jus sanguinis) as, ironically, does Haiti itself! Hence, no one with a Haitian parent can become stateless, and Haitian parents can obtain birth certificates at Haitian consulates worldwide (of which there are 4 in the DR). By the same token, a child born in Haiti to Dominicans or any non-Haitians is denied Haitian citizenship, even if the parents had long been legal permanent residents of Haiti, and even if the parents themselves had also been born in Haiti. Only if the Haitian-born child has Haitian parent does s/he receives the Haitian citizenship at birth. This seems to bother no one!
Then, why all this vehemence against the Dominican ruling, which is in fact more flexible than Haiti's own, since it awards the Dominican citizenship to those born to some foreigners?
Editorial fallacies
The BG editorial states that Haitians "would be unlikely to qualify for Haitian citizenship", while the LT editorial states that they "might find that the records needed to prove their eligibility are missing". Inherently, the writers imply that it is easier for Haitians to prove that their children qualify for Dominican as opposed to Haitian citizenship, even though all their roots are in Haiti. Not only is such implication counter-intuitive. It is also fallacious.
A Dominican birth declaration legally requires that the parents have a valid official Dominican ID (not just an arbitrary ID). An illegal or undocumented immigrant simply cannot possibly have it, which immediately implies that any Dominican birth certificate they may have obtained is necessarily invalid. Indeed the plaintiff's birth certificate explicitly indicates that the parents lacked the legally required ID, which constitutes prima facie evidence of the declaration's illegality. Furthermore, the birth declaration includes not only the names, but also the country of citizenship of the parents. It logically follows that in order for a Haitian to obtain a legal Dominican birth certificate s/he NEEDS documents that in fact prove that the child does qualify for Haitian citizenship. In other words, if the Haitian parents cannot prove to Haitian consular authorities that they are Haitian citizens, even less can they provide to Dominican authorities the necessary documentation for a Dominican birth certificate!
Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, one were to assume that illegal residents could in principle qualify for jus soli, they would still need to _prove_ that (i) the child was in fact born on Dominican soil, and (ii) that the parents were not in the DR "de transito" (transient). Illegal residents, by their own condition, would have great difficulty proving non-transient status (they lack a legal address, a formal job, real estate titles, 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 porous 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 tend to reinforce the correctness of the constitutional ruling.
Disingenuous editorials
The BG states that many DR-born Haitians "have no meaningful ties to Haiti". The LT goes farther by stating that many of them "have never set foot in Haiti and don't even speak French or Haitian Creole".
But it is at best disingenuous to argue that Haitians born on the Dominican side of a small island (approximately the size of South Carolina -- a small US state -- or Austria, a small European country) somehow manage to lose their parents' language and all connection with their relatives and culture on the Haitian side of the small island, even though they could easily cross the border back and forth, and can even listen to Haitian radio stations while in the DR. The vast majority of foreign-born/raised Dominicans do speak Dominican Spanish (how else would they communicate with their parents?!), keep in touch with their relatives in the island, are very familiar with Dominican culture, and would fit right in the DR, even if they have never visited. Haitians are no difference.
The race card
The BG and LT avoided to 'color' their editorials. However, the Gleaner blasted Dominican "xenophobes" for "bigotry" and a "racist agenda". Other article writers have been only somewhat less blunt.
Although Haitians are predominantly black, whereas Dominicans are predominantly of mixed heritage -- including a sizable minority of predominantly white people --, Dominicans do have legitimate reasons for apprehension or resentment towards Haitians and their massive presence. In the early 19th century, Haiti started out as the more prosperous and populous side, officially defined itself as including the entire "indivisible" island, and promptly invaded the Dominican side in a failed attempt to defeat the French then under brief control. Retreating Haitian troops committed well-documented abuses on the local population. Almost two decades later, shortly after Dominicans became independent from Spain, Haitians invaded again, and went on to rule the Dominican side with an iron fist for over two decades. In 1844, Dominicans fought and won their independence from Haiti, but for years had to resist repeated major armed invasions from Haiti.
Since then, Haiti has retained a numerical population advantage, and a much higher population density. Very large numbers of Haitians have, at one point or another, for various reasons, entered and/or remained in the DR without the consent of 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 the entire DR is by no means far-fetched.
One-sided editorial compassion
Editorial and article writers have shown a great deal of compassion towards Haitians, who in fact need and, for the most part, deserve it. However, they have totally ignored the plight of the equally needy and deserving Dominican poor.
It is undeniable that the presence of hundreds of thousands of Haitians primarily working as unskilled laborers for very low wages makes poor Dominicans competing with Haitians for the same jobs to accept the same low wages. Poor Dominicans must also compete with Haitians in the informal economy, as well as for overwhelmed important public services, such public transportation, schools and hospitals. The massive Haitian presence in the DR, while possibly financially beneficial to certain businesses and wealthy individuals, significantly reduces the living standards of the Dominican poor. Of this fact, editorial and article writers seem completely and inexplicably oblivious.
Constitutional intend
Those who have written the Dominican constitutions have done so under full awareness of the past and present events and factors that arise legitimate concerns on Dominicans about the massive presence of Haitians in the DR. It stands to reason that, while writing the constitution, they have considered such concern. This further reinforces that -- contrary to many writers' claims -- the interpretation that the Dominican Constitutional Court has given to all Dominican constitutions since 1929 is consistent with the intend of the constitutions' writers. This may be the strongest argument in favor of the ruling.
Several important members of the media have denounced a ruling by a legitimate Dominican court performing its constitutional duties to interpret the Dominican constitution, and some have gone as far as urging others to exert pressure against the ruling on the legitimate representatives of the Dominican people. However, the writers have based their position on one-sided compassion, misinformation, misrepresentation, deficient research, fallacies and even material provable falsehood. The writers, while possibly well meaning, should retract their statements, and apologize to both the Dominican people and their own misinformed readers.
==========================================
P.S. Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-citizenship-dominican-haitian-20131030,0,3352674.story
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/10/14/dominican-court-misguided-ruling-citizenship/mORro1nM1x0qOXfwJfvPrN/story.html
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130930/cleisure/cleisure1.html
Complete Ruling: http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764
Ruling essence: http://listin.com.do/la-republica/2013/10/27/297331/Sentencia-TC016813-Tribunal-Constitucional
Earlier ruling by the Dominican Supreme Court: http://www.idpc.es/archivo/1208337878FCI12SRD1.pdf
Jus soli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Chief Justice, Prof. Dr. Milton Ray Guevara (Doctorate in law from Niece, France):
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/presidencia
Dominican constitutions: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/DomRep/dominicanrepublic.html
Haitian constitutions: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Haiti/haiti.html
Center for Immigration Studies http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship
Dominican history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dominican_Republic
Editorial falsehoods
On 15-Oct-13, a Boston Globe (BG) editorial asserts that "[h]istorically, the Dominican Republic has given citizenship to all people born on its soil". On 30-Oct-13, a Los Angeles Times (LT) editorial asserts that "Until recently, ... anyone born in the [DR] was automatically eligible to be a citizen". On 30-Sep-13, an editorial by the Gleaner, Jamaica's oldest newspaper, additionally asserts that the ruling declared that "anyone born in the Dominican Republic after 1929, whose parents were not citizens of the country, are themselves not Dominican."
The cited statements are all provably false! Although the 2010 constitution does explicitly cite illegal residents among those whose children are ineligible for automatic citizenship at birth (jus soli), all Dominican constitutions since 1929 explicitly excluded from jus soli parents in certain categories. However, this and the ruling have NO effect on anyone ever born to a legal permanent resident in the DR.
Editorial misrepresentations
The BG editorial implies that the ruling will "revoke the citizenship" of "over 200,000" 'Dominicans of Haitian decent', resulting in "the creation of one of the largest groups of stateless people on the planet", since they "would be unlikely to qualify for Haitian citizenship". The LT editorial, entitled "Stateless in the Dominican Republic", adds that the ruling "apply the new [2010 constitution] ex post facto" and will "retroactively strip the citizenship of tens of thousands of Dominicans of Haitian descent...going back to 1929".
The cited statements are, at best, gross misrepresentations. The ruling dictates that according to all Dominican constitutions since 1929, those born to illegal residents, or to individuals in certain "transient" categories, have never qualified for Dominican citizenship at birth (jus soli), but for their parents' (jus sanguinis).
The ruling agrees with previous Dominican judicial and administrative decisions. For instance, the Dominican Supreme Court had previously argued that for as long as children born to parents in certain legal categories were excluded from automatic citizenship, those born to parents under illegal status needed to also be excluded, simply as a matter of judicial consistence: one should not gain legal benefits by falling outside the law.
No one can be stripped of a citizenship s/he never had. In fact, illegal residents have never had the documents required for a legal Dominican birth declaration. Hence, any birth certificate they may have obtained is necessarily invalid. But immigration errors, whether by mistake or mischief, are a problem in many societies, and must be corrected once discovered. Hence, the ruling did order an audit to identify all of those who may have been wrongly categorized as Dominicans.
Editorial double standards and hypocrisy
With their loud outcry against the ruling, the news media imply that the Dominican citizenship policy for children of illegal residents is exceptional. However, the Center for Immigration Studies states that 145 of 194 countries do NOT award automatic citizenship at birth to those born to illegal residents, and only 30 are confirmed to do so, with 19 whose policy is unknown. And illegal immigration is a problem in only a fraction of the 30 pure jus soli countries. Hence, if the plaintiff had filed suit for citizenship elsewhere under similar conditions, in most of the world the verdict had been the same as in the DR.
In fact many countries award citizenship only to children born to their own citizens (jus sanguinis) as, ironically, does Haiti itself! Hence, no one with a Haitian parent can become stateless, and Haitian parents can obtain birth certificates at Haitian consulates worldwide (of which there are 4 in the DR). By the same token, a child born in Haiti to Dominicans or any non-Haitians is denied Haitian citizenship, even if the parents had long been legal permanent residents of Haiti, and even if the parents themselves had also been born in Haiti. Only if the Haitian-born child has Haitian parent does s/he receives the Haitian citizenship at birth. This seems to bother no one!
Then, why all this vehemence against the Dominican ruling, which is in fact more flexible than Haiti's own, since it awards the Dominican citizenship to those born to some foreigners?
Editorial fallacies
The BG editorial states that Haitians "would be unlikely to qualify for Haitian citizenship", while the LT editorial states that they "might find that the records needed to prove their eligibility are missing". Inherently, the writers imply that it is easier for Haitians to prove that their children qualify for Dominican as opposed to Haitian citizenship, even though all their roots are in Haiti. Not only is such implication counter-intuitive. It is also fallacious.
A Dominican birth declaration legally requires that the parents have a valid official Dominican ID (not just an arbitrary ID). An illegal or undocumented immigrant simply cannot possibly have it, which immediately implies that any Dominican birth certificate they may have obtained is necessarily invalid. Indeed the plaintiff's birth certificate explicitly indicates that the parents lacked the legally required ID, which constitutes prima facie evidence of the declaration's illegality. Furthermore, the birth declaration includes not only the names, but also the country of citizenship of the parents. It logically follows that in order for a Haitian to obtain a legal Dominican birth certificate s/he NEEDS documents that in fact prove that the child does qualify for Haitian citizenship. In other words, if the Haitian parents cannot prove to Haitian consular authorities that they are Haitian citizens, even less can they provide to Dominican authorities the necessary documentation for a Dominican birth certificate!
Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, one were to assume that illegal residents could in principle qualify for jus soli, they would still need to _prove_ that (i) the child was in fact born on Dominican soil, and (ii) that the parents were not in the DR "de transito" (transient). Illegal residents, by their own condition, would have great difficulty proving non-transient status (they lack a legal address, a formal job, real estate titles, 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 porous 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 tend to reinforce the correctness of the constitutional ruling.
Disingenuous editorials
The BG states that many DR-born Haitians "have no meaningful ties to Haiti". The LT goes farther by stating that many of them "have never set foot in Haiti and don't even speak French or Haitian Creole".
But it is at best disingenuous to argue that Haitians born on the Dominican side of a small island (approximately the size of South Carolina -- a small US state -- or Austria, a small European country) somehow manage to lose their parents' language and all connection with their relatives and culture on the Haitian side of the small island, even though they could easily cross the border back and forth, and can even listen to Haitian radio stations while in the DR. The vast majority of foreign-born/raised Dominicans do speak Dominican Spanish (how else would they communicate with their parents?!), keep in touch with their relatives in the island, are very familiar with Dominican culture, and would fit right in the DR, even if they have never visited. Haitians are no difference.
The race card
The BG and LT avoided to 'color' their editorials. However, the Gleaner blasted Dominican "xenophobes" for "bigotry" and a "racist agenda". Other article writers have been only somewhat less blunt.
Although Haitians are predominantly black, whereas Dominicans are predominantly of mixed heritage -- including a sizable minority of predominantly white people --, Dominicans do have legitimate reasons for apprehension or resentment towards Haitians and their massive presence. In the early 19th century, Haiti started out as the more prosperous and populous side, officially defined itself as including the entire "indivisible" island, and promptly invaded the Dominican side in a failed attempt to defeat the French then under brief control. Retreating Haitian troops committed well-documented abuses on the local population. Almost two decades later, shortly after Dominicans became independent from Spain, Haitians invaded again, and went on to rule the Dominican side with an iron fist for over two decades. In 1844, Dominicans fought and won their independence from Haiti, but for years had to resist repeated major armed invasions from Haiti.
Since then, Haiti has retained a numerical population advantage, and a much higher population density. Very large numbers of Haitians have, at one point or another, for various reasons, entered and/or remained in the DR without the consent of 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 the entire DR is by no means far-fetched.
One-sided editorial compassion
Editorial and article writers have shown a great deal of compassion towards Haitians, who in fact need and, for the most part, deserve it. However, they have totally ignored the plight of the equally needy and deserving Dominican poor.
It is undeniable that the presence of hundreds of thousands of Haitians primarily working as unskilled laborers for very low wages makes poor Dominicans competing with Haitians for the same jobs to accept the same low wages. Poor Dominicans must also compete with Haitians in the informal economy, as well as for overwhelmed important public services, such public transportation, schools and hospitals. The massive Haitian presence in the DR, while possibly financially beneficial to certain businesses and wealthy individuals, significantly reduces the living standards of the Dominican poor. Of this fact, editorial and article writers seem completely and inexplicably oblivious.
Constitutional intend
Those who have written the Dominican constitutions have done so under full awareness of the past and present events and factors that arise legitimate concerns on Dominicans about the massive presence of Haitians in the DR. It stands to reason that, while writing the constitution, they have considered such concern. This further reinforces that -- contrary to many writers' claims -- the interpretation that the Dominican Constitutional Court has given to all Dominican constitutions since 1929 is consistent with the intend of the constitutions' writers. This may be the strongest argument in favor of the ruling.
Several important members of the media have denounced a ruling by a legitimate Dominican court performing its constitutional duties to interpret the Dominican constitution, and some have gone as far as urging others to exert pressure against the ruling on the legitimate representatives of the Dominican people. However, the writers have based their position on one-sided compassion, misinformation, misrepresentation, deficient research, fallacies and even material provable falsehood. The writers, while possibly well meaning, should retract their statements, and apologize to both the Dominican people and their own misinformed readers.
==========================================
P.S. Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-citizenship-dominican-haitian-20131030,0,3352674.story
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/10/14/dominican-court-misguided-ruling-citizenship/mORro1nM1x0qOXfwJfvPrN/story.html
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130930/cleisure/cleisure1.html
Complete Ruling: http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764
Ruling essence: http://listin.com.do/la-republica/2013/10/27/297331/Sentencia-TC016813-Tribunal-Constitucional
Earlier ruling by the Dominican Supreme Court: http://www.idpc.es/archivo/1208337878FCI12SRD1.pdf
Jus soli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Chief Justice, Prof. Dr. Milton Ray Guevara (Doctorate in law from Niece, France):
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/presidencia
Dominican constitutions: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/DomRep/dominicanrepublic.html
Haitian constitutions: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Haiti/haiti.html
Center for Immigration Studies http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship
Dominican history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dominican_Republic
Diario Libre
Continuar con Google