Birthright Citizenship Under Attack: How Dominican Nationality Laws May be the Future of U.S. Exclusion

Attacks on birthright citizenship periodically emerge in the United States, particularly during presidential election cycles. Indeed, blaming immigrants for the country\u27s woes is a common strategy for conservative politicians, and the campaign leading up to the 2016 presidential election was not an exception. Several of the Republican presidential candidates raised the issue, with President Donald Trump making it the hallmark of his immigration reform platform. Trump promised that, if elected, his administration would end birthright citizenship. In the Dominican Republic, ending birthright citizenship and curbing immigration are now enshrined into law, resulting from a significant constitutional redefinition of Dominican citizenship and a major court decision. Essentially, the Dominican Republic both modified its constitutional equivalent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also ruled that change applied retroactively, leaving four generations of former citizens stateless. Both the U.S. and the Dominican cases are driven by the same factors: fear and distrust of foreigners, historical xenophobia, selective interpretation of citizenship, and plain racial discrimination. In this Article, the authors examine the historical context of the Dominican Republic and the United States, including legal precedents and constitutional modifications and the actual and potential legal ramifications and social consequences of these changes. They conclude that in both cases, these changes are for the wrong socio-political reasons, are based on flawed legal arguments, and are harmful to constitutional and human rights. The authors call for inclusive, welcoming legal regimes that enhance-rather than undermine citizenship rights

Report on citizenship law : Dominican Republic

This report discusses citizenship in the Dominican Republic. It explores the history of citizenship in this country, modes of acquisition and loss, and current debates and reform plans regarding citizenship policy.Research for the 2016/2017 GLOBALCIT Reports has been supported by the European University Institute's Global Governance Programme, the EUI Research Council, and the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh)

A Domestic Reign of Terror: Donald Trump’s Family Separation Policy

Family separation has the dubious distinction of being the most odious measure amongst Donald Trump’s draconian anti-immigrant immigration policies. The policy was introduced by the Trump administration as a way to broadly deter would-be immigrants and asylum seekers by instilling in them the fear of being separated from their children. After its implementation, thousands of immigrant children were taken away from their parents and sent to detention centers where they spent months alone and afraid, being physically and sometimes sexually abused, and in some highly publicized cases, dying while in custody. This article details the legal implementation of the policy, its moral failings, and its political ramifications. The authors argue that Trump’s family separation policy is not only immoral, but essentially unAmerican, and ought to be firmly rejected by those who defend human rights, the welfare of children, and the most basic norms of decenc

Fear, Loathing, and the Hemispheric Consequences of Xenophobic Hate

“When you have fifteen thousand people marching up . . . how do you stop these people?” “You shoot them” [crowd member shouts] [chuckling, Trump responds:] “[O]nly in the Panhandle can you get away with that thing.”1 President Donald Trump “Thousands of criminal aliens. They’re pouring into our country.”2 President Donald Trump “They’re not people, these are animals.”3 President Donald Trump “Take a look at the death and destruction that’s been caused by people coming into this country caused by people that shouldn’t be here.”4 President Donald Trump “ [We] have millions and millions of people pouring into our country.”5 President Donald Trump “We cannot allow our [c]ountry to be overrun by illegal immigrants.”6 President Donald Trump “We will be overrun with crime and with people that should not be in our country.”7 President Donald Trum

Birthright Citizenship Under Attack: How Dominican Nationality Laws May be the Future of U.S. Exclusion

Attacks on birthright citizenship periodically emerge in the United States, particularly during presidential election cycles. Indeed, blaming immigrants for the country\u27s woes is a common strategy for conservative politicians, and the campaign leading up to the 2016 presidential election was not an exception. Several of the Republican presidential candidates raised the issue, with President Donald Trump making it the hallmark of his immigration reform platform. Trump promised that, if elected, his administration would end birthright citizenship. In the Dominican Republic, ending birthright citizenship and curbing immigration are now enshrined into law, resulting from a significant constitutional redefinition of Dominican citizenship and a major court decision. Essentially, the Dominican Republic both modified its constitutional equivalent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also ruled that change applied retroactively, leaving four generations of former citizens stateless. Both the U.S. and the Dominican cases are driven by the same factors: fear and distrust of foreigners, historical xenophobia, selective interpretation of citizenship, and plain racial discrimination. In this Article, the authors examine the historical context of the Dominican Republic and the United States, including legal precedents and constitutional modifications and the actual and potential legal ramifications and social consequences of these changes. They conclude that in both cases, these changes are for the wrong socio-political reasons, are based on flawed legal arguments, and are harmful to constitutional and human rights. The authors call for inclusive, welcoming legal regimes that enhance-rather than undermine citizenship rights