Argentine citizenship for foreigners?

[arlean]

For the person who asked if you have to actually be present in Argentina or just to hold legal residence. I was to receive permanent residence last March but because I was not living here during the past year (though had been here off and on) they would not grant permanent and I have had to wait (and pay expenses for) another year of temporary residence. Now I am not crossing the border for more than a couple days at a time, and then only rarely, on my lawyer's advice, in order to assure permanent status next March. I would say if you want citizenship, best to plan to be living here. They want evidence that you are serious about Argentina. (But of course an immigration attorney is always the best source--but I will add that my attorney did NOT warn me that I would have to be living here to gain permanent status, thus costing me an extra year of temporary residency!)

 

[steveinbsas]

Arlean, could you please tell us how many years you had your temporary residency and what type of visa (work, rentista, etc.). Mini recently raised a question regarding the number of years required before she and her husband could receive the cambio de categoria for their work visa. Anything you can add might help.

Also, I'm sure you are well aware that citizenship and permanent residency are different, but I want to clarify that citizenship apparently requires two years residency but not continuous presence in Argentina and/or other Mercosur countries (and probably not too much time in the latter).

I had my visa rentista for three years and only left the country three times: two weeks in the first year, six weeks in the second year, and just under six weeks in the third. There was no problem with this amount of travel when I applied for permanent residency a year ago. Next month I will have two full years without leaving the country and I'm considering applying for citizenship (but haven't decided).

 

[gunt86]

I was to receive permanent residence last March but because I was not living here during the past year (though had been here off and on) they would not grant permanent and I have had to wait (and pay expenses for) another year of temporary residence.

There is no physical presence test for acquiring permanent residency. I know people who have less than 6 months in county over the course of 3 years of temp and have obtained permanent residency. You had a bad migraciones clerk and a bad lawyer.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

For the person who asked if you have to actually be present in Argentina or just to hold legal residence. I was to receive permanent residence last March but because I was not living here during the past year (though had been here off and on) they would not grant permanent and I have had to wait (and pay expenses for) another year of temporary residence. Now I am not crossing the border for more than a couple days at a time, and then only rarely, on my lawyer's advice, in order to assure permanent status next March. I would say if you want citizenship, best to plan to be living here. They want evidence that you are serious about Argentina. (But of course an immigration attorney is always the best source--but I will add that my attorney did NOT warn me that I would have to be living here to gain permanent status, thus costing me an extra year of temporary residency!)

Well, if you were "so close" to get permanent residency, I suggest you apply today for citizenship.

I cannot make any assert about your lawyer advice or work quality because this is forbidden by the bar.

But you can read about that from other persons.

Regards

 

[Bajo_cero2]

There is no physical presence test for acquiring permanent residency. I know people who have less than 6 months in county over the course of 3 years of temp and have obtained permanent residency. You had a bad migraciones clerk and a bad lawyer.

The big deal with migraciones is arbitrary and the lack of minimun legal knoledge of its agents.

Regards

 

[A&A]

With respect to the whole "Constitution, 2 years of living "in country", and citizenship" debate, is there any sort of website that shows relevant statistics?

Such as...out of 10,000 applications made to the Supreme Court (or whatever is the final governing authority), X were granted citizenship, Y were not? And it took Z amount of months, years to accomplish it, on average.

It just seems to me that while this may be legally, technically the law, any time you go to court there is always a (to use hurricane terms) "Cone of Uncertainty".

 

[Bajo_cero2]

With respect to the whole "Constitution, 2 years of living "in country", and citizenship" debate, is there any sort of website that shows relevant statistics?

Such as...out of 10,000 applications made to the Supreme Court (or whatever is the final governing authority), X were granted citizenship, Y were not? And it took Z amount of months, years to accomplish it, on average.

It just seems to me that while this may be legally, technically the law, any time you go to court there is always a (to use hurricane terms) "Cone of Uncertainty".

There is not such a thing as a debate really, I am informing you guys about what are really your rights, this is the first time you have proper legal advice.

No, there is not such a thing as statics because there are just a few cases that go to Supreme Court because they produce leading precedents which are followed by first instance judges and by the chamber. When there is a leading case and judges follow it nobody keeps records of that. When there is a problematic case or a new interpretation then this case go until Supreme Court.

So, usually cases that arrive before the Supreme Court are habeas corpus (remedy for illegal detention) and they always reject deportation for inhabitants (150 years of pacific precedents) even with criminal records or banned (communists during cold war).

So, Supreme Court always said that inhabitants have the right to live here, they cannot be deported, legal (DGM) residence in not necessary.

The recent precedents are from Chinese citizens (the most difficult cases to win in order that National Constitution says that European immigration should have priority and the brain of this Supreme Law (Alberdi) wrote in his book "bases" that Chinese immigration should be avoided) and there is a fallo plenario (obligatory precedent) that said that ley the migraciones is not enforceable for inhabitants (like you guys) and citizenship law is enforceable.

Supreme Court recently, I mean this year, said that DGM residence is not necessary for citizenship.

And there are a lot of precedents about what residence, inhabitant, continuous residence means, all of them are positive related to the standard expat situation, even those cases where you go abroad several month a year every year. In fact, in the past people used to travel by boat and they didn´t lose the 2 years of continuous residence for a 1 year trip.

So, this is only a matter about to start claiming your rights at Court. Judges has the duty to follow Supreme Court precedents. So, I can tell you my friend that you have 80% chances to win and this is absolutely predictable, DGM is absolutely arbitrary and illegal, this is a waste of time dealing with them, with the new decreto you lose always.

I am attorney specialized about claiming at Court and enforcing Court precedent before judges and the chamber, I was doing the homework and I spent last month studying and researching the last 150 years precedents, so I am not speculating.

But I am not going to teach other lawyers my expertise, it already happens this week that other lawyers used my expertise pretending to know what they were talking about, so, if somebody wants to have a free consultation, he or she can contact me by PM.

In order that there might be many cases, I offer:

a) An affordable flat fee that is more or less the same that other lawyers charge you every year for your residence application (The bar association forbidden me to talk or publish about how much is my fee).

b) You pay me only if I win, but then the fee is 3 times higher.

Whatever you agree with me will be in a contract, I don´t full fit my duties, you go to the Bar Association and they take away my license.

Christian Demian Rubilar Panasiuk
(t95 f 620 CPACP)
4371-3727
15-3296-6249
[email protected]

Regards

 

[steveinbsas]

But I am not going to teach other lawyers my expertise, it already happens this week that other lawyers used my expertise pretending to know what they were talking about, so, if somebody wants to have a free consultation, he or she can contact me by PM.

Surely you aren't referring to any "lawyers" who have been posting in this thread!

When you say "pretending to know what they were talking about" are you implying that they don't?

Also, what are the legal "consequences" if a foreigner is caught pretending to be an immigration lawyer?

 

[gunt86]

Also, what are the legal "consequences" if a foreigner is caught pretending to be an immigration lawyer?

Death by a thousand cuts. It's classified as a crime of stupidity. If the perpetrator is not a foreigner, then the consequence is a honorable law degree.

 

[steveinbsas]

Death by a thousand cuts. It's classified as a crime of stupidity. If the perpetrator is not a foreigner, then the consequence is a honorable law degree.

Well, that's too bad. I was hoping it would be involuntary participation in one of Cabrera's all male all nude hot oil wrestling matches.