Dominican Legal Chief: deporting pregnant migrants is lawful, but human rights must guide execution

Santo Domingo.- The Dominican Republic’s Legal Consultant to the Executive Branch, Antoliano Peralta, stated that while national law permits the deportation of undocumented pregnant women, such actions must be carried out strictly adhering to human rights protocols.

Peralta’s comments come amidst ongoing scrutiny regarding the country’s migration policies, particularly concerning the deportation of vulnerable individuals. Speaking on the program “El Despertador,” Peralta asserted his “personal position” is that while the law allows these deportations, they must occur “within the framework of respect for human rights… but under a certain protocol.”

He pointedly added, acknowledging a critical flaw in practice, that “many times the violation is in the agents who execute it.”

Peralta acknowledged the inherent complexity of migration matters, balancing a country’s sovereign right to control its borders with the imperative of respecting human rights. He stressed that implementation “must be with strict respect for international agreements on this issue and to human rights in general,” noting that Dominican legislation itself includes provisions for the treatment of pregnant women and minors.

He firmly reiterated the state’s non-negotiable right to determine who remains within its borders. He used a stark example to illustrate the boundary between lawful enforcement and abuse: while migration authorities have the right to detain and deport an undocumented person stopped on the street, “what they do not have the right to do is throw him against the vehicle.”

Peralta’s statement underscores the difficult tightrope walk between legal prerogative and moral obligation. While asserting the state’s right to manage migration, his crucial caveat – that how deportations are executed, particularly involving vulnerable pregnant women, must adhere to human rights standards and protocols – highlights a persistent challenge. His acknowledgment that violations often stem from the agents on the ground is a potent, if implicit, critique of current practices and a call for greater accountability in the sensitive and often dangerous process of deportation.