I hope at least this time they won’t be murdered if they don’t pronounce parsley correctly.
They have a right to Haitian citizenship, per the Haitian constitution, which guarantees Haitian citizenship to someone with a Haitian parent.
So: Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.
So the people in question have derivative Haitian citizenship, and therefore the provision you mention does not apply.
Its a well known fact that many in the DR look down on Haitians as inferior, and Haitians make up a critical component of their economy filling many low level service jobs, and now the DR is trying to kick many of them out, including those born in the DR.
Sound familiar, Americans?
Lets pretend and say its not racist. Lets even say its legal. But it is certainly a law that doesn’t make the DR look any good.
…and the argument now trods a familiar path: having made and lost a legality argument, I suspect we’re going to start hearing about how the law doesn’t define morality, and this action may be legal, but it’s just so wrong and immoral and…and…and wrong.
Hmmm. Close.
While it’s true that the DR is in better financial shape than Haiti, it’s equally true that the DR is still a very poor country. It is unsurprising that poor unemployed Dominican citizens are unhappy when they perceive that jobs are being taken by non-citizens with no legal right to presence in the country.
I realize that an underlying, and generally unspoken, tenet of your argument is that national borders should not exist in the way that they actually do; that a poor person’s desire to be in country X should trump his citizenship in country Y and therefore country X should be obligated to permit him to remain.
I regard that view as foolish and untenable.
I’ll go you one better, jus soli should be the law everywhere because it is moral. ?Jus sanguinus alone can create stateless persons and just mucks up everything in nationality law.
This is a part of a long running back and forth. IIRC, part of the problem is that some of the people in ogle actually aren’t eligible for Haitian citizenship.
Both systems can result in stateless persons, since both rely on certain documentation to be correct. Especially in poor countries, where a birth certificate may not even be available.
Not sure I follow this. Why does the fact that your mother were passing though Laguardia Airport when you were born convey any sort of moral strength to your argument? I think you can make the case for jus soli or jus sanguinus but I don’t see where morals enters the picture. Can you clarify?
Most people are born somewhere, and that somewhere is usually a nation. So at least with jus soli you have a citizenship at birth full stop.
Morals as in not creating stateless children, seems pretty moral right?
I haven’t seen anything to indicate that all or even most of these people could prove that they have one or more Haitian-citizen parents.
Nah, it’s a broader term than “genocide,” it includes genocide, but also deportation.
Eh. If you want to argue that it’s morally questionable to deport a child whose parents are of unknown citizenship, that’s one thing. But to claim that it is immoral to deny citizenship to children whose parents are of known citizenship, that’s hogwash.
And what happens when the kids don’t qualify for citizenship where their parents are from?
Not my problem says the deporting country where they were born and have spent their whole life?
If this is getting conflated with the anchor baby myth, there is no such thing as an anchor baby.
Nobody brought up anchor babies.
There is when I go sailing! 
Frankly if someone was both born and raised in a country, retroactively removing their citizenship status is cruel and criminal. Full stop. They did nothing wrong and they are now non-persons, in the DR; citizenship rights are everything.
I’ll read more, but this doesn’t sound like a simple matter of jus soli; people born, raised, and living in a country, fall under any reasonable definition of citizen.
These people aren’t in a some citizen gray area, no? They’re not nomadic tribesmen, kids of diplomats, foreign/local-but-born/raised etc, who spend 99.99% of their time in another country? This sounds like a simple case of a people (from an ethnic minority) who are being selectivity legislated against by the government. That is wrong.
Read the whole thread.
How does race come into it anyway? Haitians, Dominicans – ain’t they all the same color, more or less?