steveinbsas
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 10,566
- Likes
- 6,785
gunt86 said:
No, she didn't:
laureltp said:
Quit while your falling behind, counselor.
Argentine citizenship for foreigners?
- Thread starter steveinbsas
- Start date
- Status
No, she didn't:
Quit while your falling behind, counselor.
gunt86 said:
No. It's not longer that complicated at all. There may be some very complicated case where there is a problem. However, in most cases it's not an issue at all to have dual (or more) citizenship, especially with US/ Argentina.
There are lots and lots of cases where it is a big problem to do what you are suggesting. It would be a good idea to tell the questioning poster what the many exceptions are, don't you think? Her case might be directly impacted by one of the exceptions. But let's leave that nasty bit of work for our intrepid researcher Steve!mini said:
steveinbsas
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 10,566
- Likes
- 6,785
gunt86 said:
Are you imagining stealing from me or for me?
You know what they call the clients of lawyers who don't know (or can't spell) the difference?
French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
Well, oh well.
Yes, by reading the law 21.795 (edit : I mean ley 25.871), especially with the introduction (the will to abrodge the old low 346 that is +100 years old), it seems that two years of legal residence, certified by the DNM are required.
But that's not.
Old law 346 makes a distinction in-between ciudadania and the nacionalidad which are two different concepts. Since there have been many changes in the immigration rules, but even before the law 25.871, the Supreme Court was already ruling the same way (referring to law 346). Then the law 25.871 came, supposed to change the deal, but it did not since the Supreme Court, once again, adopted the same decisions, therefore overruling (is the word correct) the criterias of two years of continual residence.
This is clear and cannot be contested, still it's not contradictory if you start with the reading of law 25.871 until you understand the whole (legislative on one part, judiciary on the other). In this case the Judiciary has a kind of final word, unless the Constitution was changed which is far heavier.
Sources :
http://www.pjn.gov.ar/Publicaciones/00010/00037797.Pdf
There are more decisions like this one, and interestingly they concern foreigners of low income (Chinese, Peruvian). I wonder what brings more to a lawyer, a 6 years process or a few audiences
I'd be glad to see a lawyer contradicting this point, and seeing that the recent permatourist thread has hit +5000 you can be sure that at least 15 or 20 Argentinean lawyers have been reading this.
Of course, it's a totally different process than following the most explicit rules, and after all, majority on this forum have the intellectual and financial ressources to do so (Steve was asking if an actual foreigner had been through this process, I guess that not too many Chinese and Peruvian read this forum), but nevertheless it seems to be a viable option.
After all, it's not about fighting the government, it's about belonging to the Argentinean Nation, sharing a community of interests, the lenguage, the good and bad times, part of the culture, bringing our own differences, etc... It's a notion fundamentally different than having a piece of papier that let you say "I'm Argentinean".
And about the legitimity, honestly, if some people live for two years or more after the visa expiration, is it worse to claim for a Right recognized by the Constitution ?
Those threads have been quite interesting, thanks to a newly welcome lawyer (won't name him not to appear as shilling )
Yes, by reading the law 21.795 (edit : I mean ley 25.871), especially with the introduction (the will to abrodge the old low 346 that is +100 years old), it seems that two years of legal residence, certified by the DNM are required.
But that's not.
Old law 346 makes a distinction in-between ciudadania and the nacionalidad which are two different concepts. Since there have been many changes in the immigration rules, but even before the law 25.871, the Supreme Court was already ruling the same way (referring to law 346). Then the law 25.871 came, supposed to change the deal, but it did not since the Supreme Court, once again, adopted the same decisions, therefore overruling (is the word correct) the criterias of two years of continual residence.
This is clear and cannot be contested, still it's not contradictory if you start with the reading of law 25.871 until you understand the whole (legislative on one part, judiciary on the other). In this case the Judiciary has a kind of final word, unless the Constitution was changed which is far heavier.
Sources :
http://www.pjn.gov.ar/Publicaciones/00010/00037797.Pdf
There are more decisions like this one, and interestingly they concern foreigners of low income (Chinese, Peruvian). I wonder what brings more to a lawyer, a 6 years process or a few audiences
I'd be glad to see a lawyer contradicting this point, and seeing that the recent permatourist thread has hit +5000 you can be sure that at least 15 or 20 Argentinean lawyers have been reading this.
Of course, it's a totally different process than following the most explicit rules, and after all, majority on this forum have the intellectual and financial ressources to do so (Steve was asking if an actual foreigner had been through this process, I guess that not too many Chinese and Peruvian read this forum
), but nevertheless it seems to be a viable option.After all, it's not about fighting the government, it's about belonging to the Argentinean Nation, sharing a community of interests, the lenguage, the good and bad times, part of the culture, bringing our own differences, etc... It's a notion fundamentally different than having a piece of papier that let you say "I'm Argentinean".
And about the legitimity, honestly, if some people live for two years or more after the visa expiration, is it worse to claim for a Right recognized by the Constitution ?
Those threads have been quite interesting, thanks to a newly welcome lawyer (won't name him not to appear as shilling
)gunt86 said:
Dude. No. She asked a general question. And generally dual citizenship for US citizens is not a problem.
Her case may be complicated (which I highly doubt). Any complication should come up as she continues on the next steps her research into become a dual citizen (if she decides she wants to).
Each case is individual. But step one was to find out if it's allowed at all. Yes. It's allowed. Will they take away your US citizenship if they "find out"? No, in 99% of the cased they will not. And part of that 1% will not come from Laurel in Argentina.
mini said:
Laurel did not ask a 'general' question. She asked if the US gvmt may revoke citizenship in cases of dual citizenship.
Unfortunately, you answered her with a 'general' answer.laureltp said:
Actually it is true that the US gvmt may revoke citizenship in cases of dual citizenship. The question is, "In what circumstances will or may the US gvmt do this?"mini said:
First hit on google for "Dual citizenship allowed US" =
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Much more helpful than anything said on this tread about this topic. Amazing how lazy people are.
- Status
