Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic Stripped Hundreds of Thousands of Haitians of Their Citizenship, Using Army to Round Up the Undocumented

Foreign immigration politics

|

Jurgen Warschun/flickr

The Dominican Republic is cracking down on illegal immigration undocumented immigration Haitians.

Soldiers join immigration agents this week to patrol migrant neighborhoods and round up undocumented residents. The government is enforcing a deadline for residents to prove Dominican citizenship or legal residence. But the definition of the undocumented in the Dominican Republic has been expanded by the government.

In 2013 the Dominican Constitutional Court ruled that only people born to at least one Dominican parent could claim Dominican citizenship, applying the rule to anyone born after 1929 and effectively canceling birthright citizenship. The court ruled everyone else in the Dominican Republic was "in transit" or there illegally. The ruling left an estimated quarter of a million people in the country without Dominican citizenship—with most not holding citizenship of any other country either. By January, less than 6,000 Dominicans of Haitian descent had applied for citizenship, though the government estimated more than 100,000 cold qualify. The Washington Post reports:

In response to the backlash, the Dominican government came up with a registration system for people to prove citizenship or that they had lived in the country before 2011. Since last June, more than 250,000 people have applied to stay, but only a fraction have so far documented their citizenship.

"There are still tens of thousands of people who are now stateless and do not have any documents," said Wade McMullen, managing attorney at the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization, which has advocated on behalf of Dominicans affected by the court ruling. "These people will get swept up in raids of migrant communities. Families are going to be broken apart. These stateless people will be shipped to Haiti, a country they've never known, and don't speak the language."

The island of Hispaniola is divided between the governments of Haiti in the west and the Dominican Republic in the east. Immigration is a hot button issue in the Dominican Republic, where the GDP is more than seven times that in Haiti. The Dominican government insists Haitians stripped of Dominican citizenship are not stateless because the Haitian Constitution grants them the right to Haitian citizenship.

NEXT: Report: All 50 States Lack "Accountability Mechanisms" for Use of Lethal Force by Police

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Six years ago Canada implemented a very different citizenship policy.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDeDQpIQFD0

    1. That is greatly disturbing.

  2. The rain-on-your-wedding-day irony is that they are all the same to America. I wonder who the Haitians will decide is beneath them and kick out.

    1. They already expelled the French.

  3. I’ve always though Jus sanguinis was a better policy than Jus soli, retroactively implementing it seems pretty harsh though.

    1. I would tend to agree.

  4. Did some developer have his sights on those ghettos and want the Haitians booted?

    1. I’m guessing good old fashion racism.

      1. You mean the black Dominicans are racist toward the black Haitians?

        1. IIRC, Dominican status is similar to Cuban…lighter/whiter Spanish heritage looking down on darker folk.

          NOTE: gross generalization.

        2. I was confusing Dominica and the Dominican Republic. My mistake.

        3. “You mean the black Dominicans are racist toward the black Haitians?”

          Yes, in much the same way the black Hutus were racist towards the black Tutsis. Different groups invent reasons why other groups are ‘inferior’ and those reasons often don’t break neatly along what Americans consider to be racial lines, but are racially based nonetheless.

          1. No, Irish, the American socially constructed idea of race is the only correct one. USA! USA!

        4. Don’t apply American racial classifications to Latin America. It just doesn’t make sense. Most Dominicans would consider themselves mixed, not black, even if they’re dark enough to be just considered black in the US (and a solid minority are light enough that they wouldn’t be considered black in the US) . Some would and do consider themselves black (generally tend to be the darker skinned ones obviously), but even then there’s a lot of internalized racism among that group. In the colonial era, the racial hierarchy put mixed people above black people (and in the mainland, above the Indigenous people), and there’s a lot of lingering effects of that still.

      2. I think it’s likelier to be simple desperation. The Dominicans have something resembling an economy and something vaguely like a working government. Haiti doesn’t, and hasn’t for a while. I don’t know, but would not be at all surprised to learn that the DR took in a lot of Haitians during various disasters, on the promise of a bunch of UN and international aide that somehow didn’t eventuate.

      3. It’s racism. There was some national policy in the DR many years ago to Spanishify or whiten the population and it was reasonably successful. Dominicans look more Spanish.

        Also, If I remember correctly, the DR and Haiti have had periodic wars causing a significant amount of ill will.

        1. Well I’m sure that if the sum total of the Haitian population moved to the Dominican Republic and voted there, their system of government would allow for more prosperity than ever and Domincan society would experience a renaissance like never seen before. Because the political culture of the Haitians would magically change once they cross the border. There’s no particular reason that Haiti is the way it is after all.

  5. Poor bastards. Ran from a corrupt government into a xenophobic government. No wonder they are risking their lives on shitty rafts to get away.

    1. I strongly suspect that both countries are the same mix of african, spanish, french, and what-have-you that is moderately common in that region. I doubt it’s xenophobia, per se. More likely, it’s a simple matter of numbers. If they can’t absorb the Haitians for some reason, and the Haitians are a drain on their resources, then they may well have had to do this if they wanted their own country to survive.

      1. It might be my personal experience getting the way. Every Haitian I have meet has been dark skinned and every Dominican has been more Spanish looking. Now that I’m thinking about it I might be conflating Dominicans and Dominican republicans.

          1. Okay I looked it up. Peace be with me, right? I am missing the reference though.

            1. When you said Dominicans, I thought of monks…

        1. conflating Dominicans and Dominican republicans

          They are the same thing.

            1. If you hear someone talking about “Dominicans,” there’s about a 99% chance they are talking about people from DR. Dominica (Dominique) has “Dominicans” with the stress on the third syllable, not the second. Which…I don’t think I have ever heard anyone in real life say.

          1. They all look alike to you, is that what you’re trying to say Nikki?

        2. Dominican Republicans are old, rich white men.

          1. And they hate Haitians.

            1. And women.

      2. It can well be xenophobia. Racial mix may be the same, but cultures are different enough that Dominicans may feel far superior to that French-mumbling lot across the border. Serbs v Croats or Russians v Poles works pretty much the same way.

      3. “I strongly suspect that both countries are the same mix of african, spanish, french, and what-have-you that is moderately common in that region.”

        That doesn’t mean there can’t be xenophobia, especially given the fact that the two countries don’t share the same language. Also, Haitians are for the most part overwhelmingly of African descent, while Dominicans are mixed pretty evenly between European (mostly Spanish) and African, with a little bit of indigenous ancestry probably mixed in from early colonial days. If you had an average looking Dominican and an average looking Haitian standing next to each other, you could easily tell which was which (although there are many dark-skinned Dominicans who could pass for being Haitian, and I’ve read that they’ve also been targeted by some of these anti-Haitian actions).

  6. Dominican Republic Stripped Hundreds of Thousands of Haitians of Their Citizenship…

    Funny, in a way. If they’re Haitian, then the Dominican Republic can’t well strip them of their citizenship, can they? Unless you mean Dominicans of Haitian descent.

    1. According to the link, anyone with a Haitian parent is given automatic Haitian citizenship regardless of where they are born.

      1. Then the Dominican Republic didn’t strip them of that.

        1. I guess they striped them of one of their dual citizenships.

      2. So all the Haitian born residents of Dominica aren’t stateless. They are Haitian citizens.

        Unless they can’t meet Haitian requirements for proving up their citizenship, of course. But that’s not the DR’s problem.

        Honestly, given what a festering hellhole Haiti is compared to the DR, and how small the DR is, I am very sympathetic the DR trying to prevent mass immigration from Haiti.

  7. Quick, someone call Sean Penn!

  8. If there is a case to be made against colonialism, Haiti is it. A huge slave population rebelled and the Frogs didn’t have the military wherewithal to do anything about it, so they just walked away and left the place. A huge population of people who had no education, no experience in governance, destroyed family values and work ethic just abandoned. Predictably it has been nothing but a clusterfuck ever since. No one who has tried to make things better has made any difference at all and they all ended up throwing up their hands and walking away. Sadly there is no end to this shit in sight. The only people who can fix it are the Haitians themselves and there seems little chance of that.

    I have little sympathy here for either side. The Dominicans have been using Haitians as slave labor forever. They let them in or just outright kidnap them and bring them. Now they realize there are too many and it is rotting their country and they want them out. This won’t end well.

    1. “If there is a case to be made against colonialism, Haiti is it. A huge slave population rebelled and the Frogs didn’t have the military wherewithal to do anything about it, so they just walked away and left the place.”

      Except you’re conveniently leaving out the part where the French showed up with gunboats and forced the Haitians to give them tons of money that ended up bankrupting the country right when it had gained independence.

      1. I am not sure what your criticism is.

        But yes, “A huge population of people who had no education, no experience in governance, destroyed family values and work ethic just abandoned. “, I forgot to add broke.

        1. The point is that I misread your post and thought you said case FOR colonialism rather than against.

          Let’s agree to pretend this never happened.

          1. heh. I suspected that. You seemed to disagree then made another point in agreement.

            Yes, against. However, I am now rethinking my position. Cytotoxic has informed me that immigration has never been harmful to any nation, ever. So, I guess colonialism is great and the Arawaks agree.

            1. Immigration has nothing to do with colonialism.

        2. They just didn’t have the human capital, the institutions nor the familiarity with any kind of rational philosophy that would have enabled them to build a modern and moderately prosperous society.

          The value of the family in passing on wealth and morals to future generations cannot be underscored enough.

          1. Yes. They never really had a chance. They weren’t civilized when they were brought there and the Frogs reduced them even from that.

            Chronically ungovernable. A description by George the elder (and wiser).

            1. “They weren’t civilized when they were brought there”

              The vast majority of African slaves were brought from western Africa, where civilization and agriculture had existed for thousands of years by the time the Atlantic slave trade started. The popular image of pre-colonial Africa being a land populated by Stone Age hunter-gatherers is really inaccurate for most of the continent. Unless by “civilized” you’re applying a standard that few societies prior to the last 50-100 years would meet.

              1. Unless by “civilized” you’re applying a standard that few societies prior to the last 50-100 years would meet.

                Being civilized is a relative term. Slaver societies in an era of cannibalism were very civilized by comparison. Being an agricultural society in the neolithic might qualify as civilized, but not necessarily in the eons to follow. So by the standards of the time they lived, the west Africans could hardly be described as civilized. They were after all one of the only populations on Earth still selling their people into slavery which is why the slave trade became so centered on that area of the world.

                1. “So by the standards of the time they lived, the west Africans could hardly be described as civilized.”

                  And what standard is this?

                  “They were after all one of the only populations on Earth still selling their people into slavery which is why the slave trade became so centered on that area of the world.”

                  Most slaves sold in Africa were captives of war or members of other tribes or nations, they generally were not selling “their own people.” Calling Europeans more civilized because they enslaved people with a different skin color is ridiculous.

              2. The peoples that were the pool for slaves were not civilized. Not even a little bit and for the same reason the Haitians weren’t. They had been used as a pool for slave capture for….well, since the beginning of time, by the other more civilized peoples there. Look at The Sudan. The muslims there have an organized society and they prey on the animists that live in the remote areas. The animists have little chance of organizing a civilization as they are constantly harried and preyed on by the muslims. In other words, it has always been that way and remains so to this day.

                1. Also, few understand that Africa is not a place. It is a huge continent (our contiguous 50 states can fit in the uninhabited area of the Sahara) and there are thousands of tribes and languages different from each other like night and day. Most of the people there are fiercely loyal to their tribe and hate all the others. By ‘the pool of peoples used for slavery’ I mean specific tribes that are preyed on by other tribes.

                  1. Well it is a place. Just not a small one…

                2. The political situation of West Africa was in no way static. No group was in any way guaranteed to maintain hegemony, and many states rose and fell over time (e.g. the Ghana, Mali, and Songhai Empires). The group dominant in one area in 1650 wasn’t necessarily the same group dominant in 1500. Tribe is a really vague word that can cover a lot of different groups. The political entities of West Africa at that time qualified as states, kingdoms, etc. they had cities, etc.

                  I think the hundreds of years of multigenerational slavery in Haiti had a much bigger impact on the poor position that it was in post-independence than any (real or imagined) relative lack of civilization in the land their ancestors came from.

                  1. I think the hundreds of years of multigenerational slavery in Haiti had a much bigger impact on the poor position that it was in post-independence than any (real or imagined) relative lack of civilization in the land their ancestors came from.

                    The “lack of civilization” is not the issue. It’s the lack of a viable political culture, the lack philosophy and morals passed on from one generation to the next. Slavery surely worsened those deficiencies, but they had no suitable such institutions prior to slavery and due to modern day ideologies, they have largely rejected those prebuilt western institutions as being facets of slavery.

                    What are they left with from which to draw wisdom in governing themselves? Do you think thousands of years of the European traditions of philosophy and culture had no value or had no bearing on their meteoric rise to prominence?

                    The result is a society that’s making it up as they go and making mistakes that other societies were largely done with hundreds if not a thousand years ago.

          2. “The value of the family in passing on wealth and morals to future generations cannot be underscored enough.”

            Goddammit. I was doing fine today, but you have now gotten me thoroughly pissed off. That made me think of the left’s push to disrupt that in our society. It is something they are doing with malice, part of destroying our society. Obumbles, the fucking snake in the grass, has been babbling about taking family wealth from day one. It is the single most damaging thing they can do and few people understand that. They blind people with envy and then stab them in the heart. It is nothing but undiluted evil.

            1. The state, as a monopolist institution by definition, is diametrically opposed to all support structures and centers of power outside of it’s own purview. First they came for the tribes, then the clans and now the basic family unit. Families are the natural enemies of the state. I think Melissa “I own your children” Harris-Perry would agree that the family unit ought to be destroyed and replaced with political institutions.

              1. Ceausescu enthusiastically agrees.

                1. Yeah that was certainly the most brazen example I’ve ever heard of.

  9. Re: comments above. I have seen no evidence that the presence of large numbers of Haitains in DR is in anyway bad for the DR.

    Immigration has never harmed any country ever.

    1. “Immigration has never harmed any country ever.”

      WILDLY ASSERTED CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS ARGUMENTS

      I have a slight suspicion Sweden would be in better shape today were it not for Somali ghettos in which 50% of working age Somalians are not working. Unless you think festering ghettos where riots occur periodically and half the people sit around all day not working are a sign of strength.

      1. But the Somalian food is awesome! Swedes love Somalian takeout. They order and pay for it and then get an empty bag.

      2. Are we counting historical tribal migrations as mass immigration too? Not actual invasions, negotiations for land with the Romans/Greeks/Persians/Chinese/Pannonian etc. Because yeah, some of those didn’t work out so well.

      3. Are you also counting the ghettos where lots of young Swedes are also not working?

        By the way I don’t have to prove a negative. It is you that has to prove that Sweden would be better off without those foreign unemployed people and only native unemployed people.

    2. “Immigration has never harmed any country ever.”

      I am thinking that maybe some American Indians might not agree with that 100%. There could be a few others around the world who could take issue with it.

      1. 80% of Europe’s Muslims are dependent on welfare subsidies. That’s a huge benefit to the native European population who are taxed to pay for it. Immigration ALWAYS works EVERYWHERE and ALWAYS. Fact.

      2. I’m also pretty sure that the Arab Palestinians disagree with it too. As do the Israelis, who aren’t about to give a “right of return” to those same Arab Palestinians.

      3. The Indians are massively better off for having western civilization here. The inequities they experienced were due to 1) government awfulness and 2) disease, which was inevitable.

    3. Immigration has never harmed any country ever.

      Yes, the Romano-Britons fared well with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. And they with the arrival of the Normans. And the Picts with the arrival of Irish settlers and Vikings. Romano-Gallic people of Gaul did very well after the arrival of the Franks. And the Romano-Iberians did wonderfully after the arrival of the Visigoths. And the Visigoths did so well after the arrival of the Moors. And the Greeks did so well after the arrival of the Turks. The Native Americans prospered like never before after the arrival of the Europeans.

      The list goes on of immigrant populations that never harmed anyone, anywhere, ever.

      1. If you’re going to stretch the definition of “immigration” to “armed conquest,” then sure, why not?

        1. Look, New Bruce, I don’t want to see you not picking on the Abos!

        2. Were those all armed conquests? Sure the European settlers were armed. But they bought land and just as often “conquered” the natives in the spirit of ‘defense’. The Anglo-Saxons similarly didn’t simply conquer what would become England. The immigrated and settled and over time utterly wiped out the Romano-British. Or how about the Franks and various Germanic tribes who came to the Roman territories as (invited) settlers and then eventually, took over to the detriment of the native population.

          But I guess if you get to redefine “immigration” as “armed conquest” anytime that mass immigration turns out poorly for the natives, then immigration is never detrimental anyone ever.

          1. Your examples show the absurdity of applying the same term for human movement before the 19th century concept of the nation-state and after. I’m sure you agree that Anglo-Saxons setting up shop in Merica and blood-eagleing anyone who disagreed is qualitatively different than a boat of Italians entering port at Ellis Island, no? Outside of a Hit ‘n Run philosophical argument where we take Cytotoxic’s usually hyperbole seriously for some reason, I doubt the average person is going to describe both with the same term.

            1. I would draw a distinction based on numbers. If immigrants of one culture settle in large enough numbers it is either preceded by or followed by armed conquest. Putin is doing it as we speak. I guess european history is replete with examples of that right up to today.

              Small numbers of people from one culture trickling in and assimilating works well. Large numbers flooding in and not assimilating, not so much. Cytotoxic probably had the first condition in mind when he made his absolute statement.

            2. Outside of a Hit ‘n Run philosophical argument where we take Cytotoxic’s usually hyperbole seriously for some reason, I doubt the average person is going to describe both with the same term.

              They might not. Cyto’s absolute statement needs only one single example in all of history to disprove it. Such is the nature of absolutes. Though, even outside of this discussion we’re having right now, I don’t know that I’d call the Anglo-Saxon takeover as an armed invasion necessarily. They came at first at the invitation of the Romano-Britons as feoderati, as immigrants. As did most of the Germanic tribes that were piercing the W.R.E. borders. These immigrants in time upended Roman law (which was inferior to Germanic law anyways in my opinion, but I digress) and totally reshaped society to the measurable detriment of those host societies.

              And that’s just one small snapshot of mass immigration in human history. We could certainly delve into innumerable examples of immigrants not exactly providing a net benefit to the host society.

            3. But as far as redefining the word “immigration” to fit the times it takes place, I think is moving the goal posts. Let’s not forget that to begin with, “immigration” is a government policy. When you’re not crossing some political border we just call it “moving”. You don’t immigrate to the new house down the street. You aren’t immigrating to that bigger apartment upstairs. You aren’t immigrating to work the next town over either.

              No one has a right to immigrate to a country anymore than they have a right to immigrate into that spare bedroom in your house. They would need your permission. In a world without governments monopolizing security and violating our right to free association, the issue of “immigration” is non-existent.

          2. European settlers didn’t immigrate into Native societies, they set up their own parallel ones, usually through force or the threat of force. There actually were some Europeans who did move into Native societies, which was usually beneficial. Quite a few prominent Indian leaders were part-white.

            Also, bringing up the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic tribe examples ignores the context in which those things occurred. Invitation, when it did happen, was often done so out of desperation on the part of the Romans. And when Huns invaded, they just poured over the border even without invitation. Also, evidence seems to lean towards the theory that the Anglo-Saxons invaded and took over Britain and transformed it culturally more so than wiping out the previous inhabitants, as many traditionally assumed.

            1. European settlers didn’t immigrate into Native societies, they set up their own parallel ones, usually through force or the threat of force.

              Goal posts. Try not to move them so much.

              Also, bringing up the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic tribe examples ignores the context in which those things occurred.

              Relativism.

              Also, evidence seems to lean towards the theory that the Anglo-Saxons invaded and took over Britain and transformed it culturally more so than wiping out the previous inhabitants, as many traditionally assumed.

              The DNA evidence suggests that the Anglo-Saxons did indeed reproduce with Romano-British women, but the influence of Romano-British men on the DNA pool fell off the charts and virtually disappeared. And certainly the Anglo-Saxons changed the place cutlurally, which is necessarily not a win for those who argue that “we should just let them come en masse and they’ll just all magically assimilate”.

              If half of the world’s muslims migrated to the US in a short span of time, they would certainly transform the US culturally, but who can call that a win-win? The least honest of Muslim immigrants would, I suppose.

              1. The DNA evidence suggests that the Anglo-Saxons did indeed reproduce with Romano-British women,

                With, I am sure, a strict adherence to “Yes means yes”.

              2. Anyone who equates armed invasion with immigration is an idiot.

                Mass immigration built America.

        3. OK, if you think those examples are more “armed conquest” than “immigration,” then I’ll just throw out how well the Romano-Gallic people of Gaul did when the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans moved en masse across the frozen Rhine on December 31, 406.

          1. That’s a pretty bad example. That was definitely an armed invasion.

            1. It was definitely a mass migration of entire tribes.

    4. Immigration has never harmed any country ever.

      Well, not counting those European countries who are now hosting no-go zones that are home base to rape gangs and who knows what else.

      And that’s just currently, off the top of my head.

      1. Another example, a little off template perhaps:

        The mass resettlements forced by the Soviets across their new empire. Now, those were preceded by military(ish) conquest.

        Or perhaps you’d like to consult the Jordanians who used to live in what is now Israel and felt the mass immigration of Jews was intolerable.

      2. The French no-go zones are an urban myth made up by Daniel Pipes who has recanted his story.

        The mass resettlements forced by the Soviets across their new empire.

        Irrelevant.

        Or perhaps you’d like to consult the Jordanians who used to live in what is now Israel and felt the mass immigration of Jews was intolerable.

        They shouldn’t have fought against Israel. Irrelevant. Israel is superior to what that place was before.

  10. Dominicans really hate Haitians.

    1. And for some reason Puerto Ricans really hate Dominicans.

      It’s the Circle of Liiiifffffeeee!

      1. And Equadorians hate Peruvians. The list goes on.

        1. Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics
          And the Catholics hate the Protestants
          The Hindus hate the Muslims
          And everybody hates the Jews!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

        2. Yeah, and on and on and on. Few people in the US understand just how non-racist this country is. Go nearly anywhere else in the world and the average person holds views that would get you ostracized here.

          1. Yet we have the reputation for monstrous racism and not the Turks, not the Sub-Saharan Africans nor the Russians who have had so many pogroms and genocides historians have lost count.

            1. You are aware that sub-Saharan Africa isn’t one country, right?

              I think it’s hard to compare when you live in the US. Obviously American racism is going to get a lot more attention than racism in Turkey, Russia, or Africa.

              1. You are aware that sub-Saharan Africa isn’t one country, right?

                You are aware that I gave no indication that is was, derp?

                1. My point is that giving a reputation to such a broad category based on the actions of some groups within it is quite absurd. Would it make sense to stereotype Canadians (and other North Americans) as being racist because of something that happened in Guatemala? Turkish, Russian, and American are at least national identities that have real, meaningful significance in this sort of discussion. Sub-saharan african doesn’t.

                  1. My point is that giving a reputation to such a broad category based on the actions of some groups within it is quite absurd.

                    My point is that racism is fairly rampant in this place known colloquially as sub-Saharan Africa, meaning that part of Africa that is south of the Saharan desert, which as a continental divide has created a clear social divide between the cultures and peoples north of the divide and those south of it.

                    Forgive me for not listing off a litany of sub-Saharan tribes who apparently according to you, are no more different or similar to peoples north of the Sahara or with Australian Aborigines for that matter.

      2. And Argentines look down on everyone.

        1. Except for Koreans. Even the Argentinians know that the Koreans are the only real humans.

    1. Woah…

      Reminds me of the English chasing around Lombard’s centuries ago…”say ‘bread and cheese'” – say it wrong and get it.

      1. No I thought that was the Frisians chasing around the proto-Dutch??

      2. Bu?ter, brea en griene tsiis

  11. Eventually, other people start to run you out of your own money.

  12. So, OK, like right now, for example, the Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all “What about the strain on our resources?” But it’s like, when I had this garden party for my father’s birthday right? I said R.S.V.P. because it was a sit-down dinner. But people came that like, did not R.S.V.P. so I was like, totally buggin’. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, squish in extra place settings, but by the end of the day it was like, the more the merrier! And so, if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion, may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty?

    1. Well, thank you Alicia Silverstone.

  13. Perhaps the Dominicans could just sell all their libertarians into slavery and use the proceeds to build a nice border fence. Come to think of it, that might not be a bad approach for America, either.

  14. Of course, there’s also the intermingling of mass immigration with armed support, you might say. Where immigrants start to be not welcomed, but keep coming, and get more resistance, and things get all shooty.

    We generally call this “ethnic cleansing” these days, where both immigrants and residents are essentially fighting to expel each other. If you don’t want to head down that road, choking off the immigration early is probably a good idea.

    On a somewhat related note, there are periodic waves of people trying to immigrate to Australia from the South Pacific. A “tolerant” attitude to this immigration leads to more of it, with a truly impressive body count as they die at sea. A restrictive approach stops it from being attempted nearly as much, and fewer people die. Naturally, the approach with the body count is regarded as the compassionate approach.

    1. A restrictive approach stops it from being attempted nearly as much, and fewer people die. Naturally, the approach with the body count is regarded as the compassionate approach.

      Clearly we know what’s best for those people. Much better they should rot in their home country. How high-minded of you RC. Give yourself a pat on the back.

      We generally call this “ethnic cleansing” these days, where both immigrants and residents are essentially fighting to expel each other. If you don’t want to head down that road, choking off the immigration early is probably a good idea.

      Since we’ve never gone down that road I think we can just refuse to indulge this fever-dream fantasy.

  15. The laws are even harsher in Japan. It does not matter if you were born there. It is about family heritage. I have spent some time in the D.R. and Haiti. The D.R. is a very poor country, and they cannot afford the infinite number of Haitians trying to get there by boat and by foot. Haiti is half the size, but has nearly the same population as the D.R. I cannot blame the citizens of the D.R. for not wanting their country to turn into another Haiti. Of course any decent person feels for the plight of the Haitians. But the D.R. is not the place that can save them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.