106 | Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic related to them, but based on the different situation of their parents as regards whether they are regular or irregular migrants. Thus, this distinction between the situations of the parents, in itself, does not explain the justification or purpose of the difference in treatment between individuals who were born in Dominican territory. Consequently, the Court understand that the arguments set forth in judgment TC/0168/13 are insufficient, because they do not explain the objective sought by the distinction examined and, therefore, they prevent an assessment of whether it is reasonable and proportionate. 247. The Commission also deems relevant to point out that one limit on the State’s authority to determine who its nationals are is its duty to provide all individuals equal and effective protection before the law without discrimination. Once again, the Commission agrees with the Inter-American Court’s finding in the case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic regarding the right to nationality of the children of immigrants in the Dominican Republic under the pertinent provision of the Constitution and the international principles on the protection of migrants where it wrote that: a) The migratory status of a person cannot be a condition for the State to grant nationality, because migratory status can never constitute a justification for depriving a person of the right to nationality or the enjoyment and exercise of his rights; 252 (b) The migratory status of a person is not transmitted to the children, and (c) The fact that a person has been born on the territory of a State is the only fact that needs to be proved for the acquisition of nationality, in the case of those persons who would not have the right to another nationality if they did not acquire that of the State where they were born. 248. As a corollary to the foregoing, the addition of the parents’ irregular migratory situation as one of the grounds for denying nationality on the basis of jus soli, is exposed as discriminatory when it is applied in a context that has previously been described as discriminatory against the Dominican population of Haitian descent, which also happens to be a group disproportionately affected by the introduction of the new basis for not conferring Dominican nationality on the basis of jus soli. 253 The 252 253 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, para. 134. In addition to the comments already made concerning the context of the present case (supra par. 171), it is interesting to note that in judgment TC/0168/13, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the flow of immigrants from Haiti into the Dominican Republic far outnumbers that from other countries, and that a much higher percentage of the Haitian immigrants have irregular migratory status. In the judgment in question, the Constitutional Court wrote that “aliens from countries other than Haiti number 100,638, while those of Haitian origin number 668,145. […The] Haitian immigrants and their descendants […] account for 6.87% of the population living in the national territory. According to reports that appeared in the Dominican press, the Office of the Director General of Immigration of the Dominican Republic only has 11,000 Haitian immigrants legally registered, which is 0.16% of the total.” The population of Haitian origin and Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic thus outnumbers those from countries other than Haiti and their descendants. Furthermore, some percentage of Haitian immigrants are not “legally registered.” The difficulties that Haitians Organization of American States | OAS