Paying for the Mistakes of Others
The constitution of a land should not suffer any violation as long as amendments of such constitution are not made. Fabian Del Orbe implies that, in the Dominican Republic, “ ignoring an existing law, does not free the duty and obligation to fulfill it.” However, Del Orber fails to address that the government is responsible that the constitution is not being neglected. In 1929 a new amendment to the Dominican Constitution was made, which stated that in order to be a Dominican at least one parent had to be Dominican regardless where the baby was born. Nonetheless, after stating who was Dominican in the constitution, the government kept giving documentation to anyone born in the country of undocumented parents. Many Dominicans of international descendent, which parents without documents thought that giving birth to them in the Dominican Republic automatically provided Dominican citizenship to their children, now are being considered “stateless” by the sentence TC 0168-13. Denationalized citizens face lack of opportunities and deportation to their ancestral native country because by law they were never Dominicans. Now, jobs, education, health insurance, getting married, the right of ownership are privileges taken away.
Of course the constitution of a country has to be followed as it dictates; nonetheless, the nationality of the place we were born and raised seems as a right we should all have. The people should not suffer the consequences when the government of a country does not follow the constitution. As an excuse, the Dominican government in 2014 came with the law 169/14, which “provides for special arrangements for people born in the country, entered illegally in the Dominican civil registration and naturalization.” because “ the Constitutional Court showed a deficiency of the Dominican State that lasted over time and spread throughout the country, which caused a number of people born in the Dominican Republic received the Dominican State’s own documentation that made presume that was Dominican nationals,” after 1929, “based on which developed their civil life with certainties and specific expectations based on that condition.”
If the Dominican government had initially followed the Dominican constitution, now the children and grand children of any undocumented parents, who migrated to the Dominican Republic after 1929, would not be facing deportation and lost of their Dominican nationality. Orbe brings a good argument by implying that the ignorance of the law does not justify its violation. Nonetheless, if who are responsible to maintain the law failed, we cannot make people who were victims of the negligence of the Dominican government pay. A law like the 169/14 is not the way of fixing the life of the victims, time to fix the nationality is not needed, but the nationality that was once given by the government.
Works Cited
Del Orbe, Fabian. “Re: Mi Opinión Resumida En El Caso De La Sentencia 168-13, Del Tribunal Constitucional.” Web log comment. Francomacorisanos, 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. <http://www.francomacorisanos.com/VerNoticias.aspx?ID=27931&Imagenes=Imagenes/Noticias/haitianosfrentealcongreso.jpg#.VRd8_JPF_K0>.
“Ley No. 169-14.” El Congreso Nacional En Nombre De La Republica Dominicana (2014): 1-2. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. <http://www.consultoria.gob.do/spaw2/uploads/files/Ley%20No.%20169-14.pdf>. <span>Law establishing a special scheme for people born in the country registered irregularly in the Dominican Civil Registry and naturalization .</span>
Mendez, Wanda. “Ley 169/14.” Listindiario.com. Listin Diario, 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2015. <http://www.listindiario.com/puntos-de-vista/2014/12/30/350985/Ley-16914>.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
feedback requested
Feedback provided. —DSH
LikeLike
Good title, Albert!
P1. Your individual statements seem completely cogent, but your readers are not familiar with the context that makes them understandable, Albert.
—The first claim can stand on its own.
—The second, by Orbe, probably has a specific context in the Dominican Republic, but your readers don’t know that.
—The third clearly requires some explanation about how “the government” is neglecting the constitution.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your readers are familiar with your topic for your shorter arguments.
P2. Again, I understand these claims because I’m already somewhat familiar with the details of the DR/Haiti situation. If I were not, I would have no idea whether there was a time when the constitution DID provide citizenship for everyone born in the DR. There’s a difference between “according to the constitution” and “by law.” It’s also unclear what your own attitude might be toward this legal situation. When you say “should be in a process of deportation,” readers will understandably conclude that you’re in favor of deportation. Is that accurate?
P3. I’m still trying to help you clarify the difference between the constitution and the law, Albert. When you quote Huellas, you don’t make clear whether Huellas is quoting a law passed in 1929, a change to the Constitution made in 1929, or the original Constitution.
I see that you’re trying to clarify with your second quote. But the distinction is not clear.
—The first quote would deny citizenship to children of illegal or undocumented foreigners born in the DR.
—The second quote seems to provide a path to citizenship for such children.
But it’s not clear which came first or which one is in effect currently because you don’t provide a date for the second or explain the date for the first.
The end of the paragraph begins to describe the perplexity nicely: children born in the DR to foreign parents during a particular time frame were given documents that insinuated they were or could become citizens. Now, apparently, they’re being denied.
I don’t think I would be able to draw that conclusion if I didn’t already understand the situation. Most readers will not. It’s your job to help them.
P4. You ALMOST get this rebuttal correct, Albert. The argument against Orbe is that NOBODY was IGNORANT of the law. Instead, they were completely AWARE of the law, AS IT WAS. The fact that the law has changed has nothing to do with their knowledge or ignorance.
You are progressing beautifully, Albert. I’m very impressed with the overall quality of your work here. Revise it to provide a few details to clarify the situation for new readers and you’ll have a strong essay.
LikeLike