HoboZero said:
I wanted to add that I've been here doing the 90 crossing for three years, and was told, angrily I should add, last weekend by the argentine immigrations officer that the laws are changing and a tourist visa is just that and can't be renewed indefinitely. She told me that it was the last time I'd be granted admission.
I've heard that the crackdown was coming. They were going to institute a $135 dollar entrance fee this year, but it never came to fruition. I understand that this is still the plan. It's a matter of when not if.
I'm pursuing a temporary residency now am interested if anyone has gotten one under the "rentista" option. I've got some savings, but can't demonstrate income.
Very interesting. Well, I'd hope that this isn't the case. I really don't understand where the logic is in imposing limits. Yeah, yeah, the U.S. and other countries do it, but why does a country whose inhabitants are so hellbent on distancing themselves from U.S. policies choose to adopt those policies?
Reciprocity fees are not just immature, but they're ineffective. With regard to the U.S., a very small percentage of people travel internationally. Heck, most U.S. citizens don't even have passports. Obviously, foreigners traveling to countries like Chile or Brazil don't like the fees, and they would probably not support them either. (I sure don't!) However, as I said, this group is a minority. The only people that can change these policies are diplomats and the majority of U.S. citizens, both of which are not affected whatsoever by these reciprocity policies. I'd argue that the majority of the population in the U.S. couldn't careless about what goes on outside of their state borders (states' rights), much less the U.S. border. In most cases in the U.S., majority rules.
So, this all leaves me so confused. Most people who live in Argentina, like myself, have telecommute jobs in their home country. Perhaps I'm just hanging out with people who are too much like me, but this seems to be the case. I only know one person who earns Argentine pesos, and that just serves as supplemental income. Everyone else spends dollars from home. Thus, my point is, why would the government want to kick out people who are spending 100% dollars or even a partial amount?
It seems this country just makes the worst business decisions. With tourism significantly down from last year, restricting "tourists" just seems irrational. Allowing the tourists to stay is perhaps Argentina's smartest "foreign" business decision... and we all know they haven't made very good ones in the past.
