Gloria Natapradja: Young girl's dream crushed by Indonesian citizenship law

[dafluff]

I presume you mean those that the parents also didn't register prior to the deadline....were there that many...seems you suggested there are thousands yet I've only heard about Gloria.

Probably because none of them went through national media stories like Gloria did?

Not only parents who didn't register by those deadlines. Also mixed marriage kids with WNI mothers who were born prior to that, but are by 2006 adults and no longer dual citizenship eligible. So basically every kid born from WNA husband, WNI wife marriage since the birth of RI, to about 1988.

 

[atlantis]

I presume you mean those that the parents also didn't register prior to the deadline....were there that many...seems you suggested there are thousands yet I've only heard about Gloria.

They are indeed thousands.

The main problem is that UU 12/2006 has never been socialized properly abroad or even domestically prior to the end of the period given to register. From 2008 till 2010, when I was moderating another forum, I have been contacted by DOZENS of users or readers who were desperate because they had no proper information from the KBRI in the country they were leaving on HOW to register their kids for dual citizenship.

The law has been passed in 2006, but the implementing regulations have only been passed in 2007, and very poorly communicated to KBRIs. In 2008 there were still KBRI who had little clue on what they had to do and say to the parents.

My son got his dual citizenship in 2007. When I came to the Kantor Wilayah to start the procedure, I had to explain them step by step, how to do it. And it was IN Indonesia.

 

[Davita]

I understand the process may be difficult but I asked a simple question...how many mixed-marriage children are denied their Indonesian citizenship, like Gloria , because her parents were indolent. Atlantis and dafluff say there are thousands. Really! Similar?

Dafluff said..."Not only parents who didn't register by those deadlines. Also mixed marriage kids with WNI mothers who were born prior to that, but are by 2006 adults and no longer dual citizenship eligible. So basically every kid born from WNA husband, WNI wife marriage since the birth of RI, to about 1988.'[


My question still is ..how many...four or five?

edit: this thread has nothing to do with any previous Indonesian law with regard to the situation under discussion.

Dafluff's observation implies a personal, to me, attitude to which I'm not willing to debate..... and has nothing to do with the OP, the thread, or any of my posts.
If Dafluff wishes to open a dialogue OP on how Indonesia treats its diaspora I'm all for that...count me IN.

My post about Gloria simply implied a comparison to the USA DASCA situation.

 

[dafluff]

My post is meant to be informational to the actual situation Gloria is in. I take no "personal attitude" other than disagreeing with the statement that her status is similar to DACA kids. Without diminishing her troubles, they are absolutely minor compared to DACA kids, and comparing them is unfair.

Gloria's situation however, IS EXACTLY similar to all the kids who were born to mixed marriage prior to the 2006 law, both those who were minors and were not registered, and who were already past the age of eligibility. Due to her mother's failure to register her, her path to citizenship is exactly the same as those kids. This is why I brought up previous laws. You know, comparing things that are actually similar.

I think this should be clear to any reasonable reader at this point.

@Davita I have no idea what else to explain to you. You want some hard numbers where I obviously made an estimate. However, I explained the rationale for the numbers, and Atlantis has given his input also. If you tried to actually understand my post, you will see that those numbers are reasonable. But I get the sense that you just take things personally because I disagreed with something you said. Maybe you can post these in your blog section if you do not want debate.

 

[Davita]

My post is meant to be informational to the actual situation Gloria is in. I take no "personal attitude" other than disagreeing with the statement that her status is similar to DACA kids. Without diminishing her troubles, they are absolutely minor compared to DACA kids, and comparing them is unfair.

Gloria's situation however, IS EXACTLY similar to all the kids who were born to mixed marriage prior to the 2006 law, both those who were minors and were not registered, and who were already past the age of eligibility. Due to her mother's failure to register her, her path to citizenship is exactly the same as those kids. This is why I brought up previous laws. You know, comparing things that are actually similar.

I think this should be clear to any reasonable reader at this point.

@Davita I have no idea what else to explain to you. You want some hard numbers where I obviously made an estimate. However, I explained the rationale for the numbers, and Atlantis has given his input also. If you tried to actually understand my post, you will see that those numbers are reasonable. But I get the sense that you just take things personally because I disagreed with something you said. Maybe you can post these in your blog section if you do not want debate.

If your desire is to be informational I concur... but you were not the inspirational poster to regurgitate this thread...I did....see post #29. Your argumentative response said my post was 'there is almost no similarity " post # 32.
You then posited that my posting of similarity between Gloria and Trump's edict had no value in similarity..... but I also didn't mean anything exact...it was to illicit a debate without exactness. You then attempted to demean my post , change the subject, and prove your argument with facts which neither you, nor Atlantis, can provide.
If you wish to write on how children of mixed marriage can expedite their return to be Indonesians I'll be happy to contribute to that debate.
Meanwhile, I suggest you adjust your tone of dialogue when you respond to other member's contributions.

 

[dafluff]

If your desire is to be informational I concur... but you were not the inspirational poster to regurgitate this thread...I did....see post #29. Your argumentative response said my post was 'there is almost no similarity " post # 32.
You then posited that my posting of similarity between Gloria and Trump's edict had no value in similarity..... but I also didn't mean anything exact...it was to illicit a debate without exactness. You then attempted to demean my post , change the subject, and prove your argument with facts which neither you, nor Atlantis, can provide.
If you wish to write on how children of mixed marriage can expedite their return to be Indonesians I'll be happy to contribute to that debate.
Meanwhile, I suggest you adjust your tone of dialogue when you respond to other member's contributions.

My response "there is almost no similarity" is because well, there is almost no similarity. In the same post I even wrote exactly why. But maybe you didn't read that part.

President Trump is bringing up the issue of DACA which is the concern of nearly a million children from illegal immigrants who never documented their children and who may now be facing deportation.... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/04/trump-congress-dreamers-daca-242310.

This has similarity to Gloria who's mother simply was unaware she needed to document her daughter as a WNI before a deadline. The Indonesian Supreme Court has now overruled her appeal so, although unlikely Gloria will be deported, it is possible and, after she is 21, she will be seen as a foreigner in a country she was born and has only ever known....and will need a visa to remain.

Maybe Trump is taking a leaf from Indonesia's harsh rules in this respect.

In fact there are other mistakes in your post that I didn't bring up before because I was being mindful to your sensitivity. But perhaps these are contributing to your continued inability to understand my point, so lets examine them.

The Indonesian Supreme Court has now overruled her appeal so, although unlikely Gloria will be deported, it is possible

The Supreme Court ruling just denied her late dual citizenship status. It didn't change her previous status. Therefore deportation is not a concern over this ruling. She is still eligible for parental sponsored KITAS/KITAP, which is what I am guessing she has been on the whole time.

after she is 21, she will be seen as a foreigner in a country she was born and has only ever known

Not after she is 21, she is de facto a foreigner in Indonesia now, and has been since her birth. She has no dual citizenship, and the rule where dual citizenship holders have to choose by the age of 21 is irrelevant to her situation.

....and will need a visa to remain.

She needs visa/stay permit to remain now, and has since her birth. The fact that she has an Indonesian mother, means that she probably has one, or if not, an easy path (KITAP sponsored by WNI parent) is available to her. The fact that she has been in Indonesia possibly continuously since her birth, means that she is also immediately eligible to apply for citizenship.

While I doubt very many cases like Gloria still exist (and even much less likely that they read this forum) if some in her situation were to read your post they would wrongly conclude that:

a) They are at risk of deportation from this ruling (they're not).
b) They only need visa after they are 21 (they will, but they also do now).

Meanwhile, I suggest you adjust your tone of dialogue when you respond to other member's contributions.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

 

[Davita]

I cannot be bothered answering your detailed points. My original post was to highlight, in a general and parallel consensus, and hope to interest others, but you tried to demean my post with your response.
I already accepted that a debate about those details are for another thread and, if you wish to create one, I'll be a willing participant.

 

[dafluff]

I cannot be bothered answering your detailed points. My original post was to highlight, in a general and parallel consensus, and hope to interest others, but you tried to demean my post with your response.
I already accepted that a debate about those details are for another thread and, if you wish to create one, I'll be a willing participant.

I guess I am also not understanding how details about Gloria's case, and others affected similarly by Indonesian citizenship law, are not suitable for a thread titled "Gloria Natapradja: Young girl's dream crushed by Indonesian citizenship law", but DACA stuff which involves kids in the US is for this thread?

 

[Davita]

I guess I am also not understanding how details about Gloria's case, and others affected similarly by Indonesian citizenship law, are not suitable for a thread titled "Gloria Natapradja: Young girl's dream crushed by Indonesian citizenship law", but DACA stuff which involves kids in the US is for this thread?

You are absolutely correct. Forgive me for trying to create, or generate, any forum discussions not relevant to any threads title. I am remiss!

 

[dafluff]

You are absolutely correct. Forgive me for trying to create, or generate, any forum discussions not relevant to any threads title. I am remiss!

Again you are taking my words and twisting it to go out of your way to offend yourself. You are the one who keeps telling me that my input is not relevant to this thread. I am just asking why my input is not relevant, while yours apparently is?

 

[Davita]

Again you are taking my words and twisting it to go out of your way to offend yourself. You are the one who keeps telling me that my input is not relevant to this thread. I am just asking why my input is not relevant, while yours apparently is?

No-one has mentioned relevance.
If I had posted #29 in another thread it may not have generated the information relevant to this thread. The point is you replied aggressively, in your initial submission, to my post #29 i.e. 'There is almost no similarity.'
I responded "I think you are choosing your own perspective of what I said and I wonder why you mention it...your description of her was suffice to make your point.
The similarity I was referring is that Gloria was a child, and had no input to her status, and neither do the children under DACA."

Subsequently, you have informed us of your knowledge of Gloria and relevant Indonesian law and I have no argument with that. My dispute is I take exception to your tone of demeaning my post when it wasn't necessary to make your point....enlightening as it is.

 

[dafluff]

No-one has mentioned relevance.
If I had posted #29 in another thread it may not have generated the information relevant to this thread. The point is you replied aggressively, in your initial submission, to my post #29 i.e. 'There is almost no similarity.'
I responded "I think you are choosing your own perspective of what I said and I wonder why you mention it...your description of her was suffice to make your point.
The similarity I was referring is that Gloria was a child, and had no input to her status, and neither do the children under DACA."

Subsequently, you have informed us of your knowledge of Gloria and relevant Indonesian law and I have no argument with that. My dispute is I take exception to your tone of demeaning my post when it wasn't necessary to make your point....enlightening as it is.

In the future I will use other words to convey something is dissimilar to something else. I didn't think "There is almost no similarity" would be considered aggressive by anyone, but I understand that you feel it is.

 

[Davita]

Thank you.... I accept your post # 52. The words themselves are not aggressive but in the context of your response to my thread they were. I'm sure we both understood your intent.