YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. 2017] The Risk of Statelessness VOL. XIX 67 context of the history of anti-Haitian sentiment in the Dominican Republic, and referred to reports of systematic discriminatory refusals to register the births of children born to Haitian parents.129 The Court then concluded that the arbitrary denial of birth registration deprived the two girls of their human right to nationality and left them stateless.130 In finding that the girls were stateless, the Court did not specifically analyze or address Haitian law regarding nationality; rather, it focused on the wrongful actions of the Dominican authorities in denying them Dominican nationality.131 This determination by the Inter-American Court that these girls who were born in the Dominican Republic to a Haitian parent became stateless when they were denied Dominican nationality set off a statelessness debate that still rages today. B. A Clash Over the Meaning of Statelessness The decision of the Inter-American Court in The Girls Yean and Bosico came on the heels of the 2004 immigration law, which declared that the children of non-residents would not be considered Dominican nationals because their parents were “in transit” under the Constitution.132 A broad coalition of Dominican civil society actors challenged the law as unconstitutional, arguing that this interpretation of “in transit” was both contrary to the evident meaning of the Constitution and discriminatory in purpose and effect.133 The Dominican Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), sitting in its capacity as a constitutional court, held the 2004 immigration law to be constitutional just months after the Inter-American Court decided The Girls Yean and Bosico.134 The SCJ set forth a very different analysis of the state’s international obligations. First, it addressed the argument that the law was discriminatory, finding that it was not because it treated all foreigners equally.135 Then it addressed the argument that the law perpetuated statelessness, but found that there was no basis for this concern because the children of migrants would derive Haitian citizenship from their Haitian parents.136 The SCJ specifically referenced the Constitution of Haiti, which provided that all persons born to Haitians in foreign territory would be considered nationals of Haiti.137 While the decision of the SCJ did not refer specifically to the Inter129. Id. ¶¶ 168-70. 130. Id. ¶¶ 166, 172, 174. 131. Id. ¶¶ 152-172. 132. General Migration Law, No. 285-04, supra note 117, art. 36 (Dom. Rep.). 133. Demanda en Declatoria de Inconstitucionalidad de la Ley General de Migración 28504 [Complaint for a Declaratory Judgment on the Unconstitutionality of the General Law of Migration No. 285-04] (Jun. 23, 2005) (on file with author). 134. The SCJ made its ruling on December 14, 2005. See SCJ, 14 diciembre 2005, B.J. No. 1141, p. 1 (Dom. Rep.). 135. Id. at 7-8. 136. See id. at 8-9. 137. See id. at 9. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3111529