AlexanderB
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 251
- Likes
- 94
So, I know this is a can of worms, but I'm looking for some advice on the best way to "permatourist", since I presume that is the only method by which I can stay in Argentina for a period of at least one to several years. I've read many prior threads here on this issue, but can't seem to find any consensus on a few key issues, and could really use some perspectives.
I suppose this question is really about enforcement and enforceability, more than anything else.
I'm one of those self-employed individuals who earns income through a US-based entity, so, as far as I know, I do not fall into any of the admissible legal residence categories.
I'm not:
- Prospectively employed by an Argentine concern that can sponsor a work residency visa for me.
- A retiree or the recipient of an irrevocable trust.
- Married to an Argentine.
- Ancestrally or natively Argentine.
- Student.
- Academic, scientist or distinguished specialist of national significance.
- Athlete.or artist.
- Asylum-seekers, refugee, or migrant worker.
- Investor.
- etc.
As far as I know, that pretty much leaves being a "permatourist" as an option. Am I wrong? As far as I know, I do not qualify for any kind of residency in Argentina. Unless I'm wrong, I'm going to start with that premise.
There seem to be two predominant schools of thought:
1. The "go to Colonia every ~90 days" school.
2. The "don't go to Colonia, just overstay your tourist visa for as long as you like, whenever you like, and pay the 300 pesos every time you want to leave" school.
There seems to be broad agreement that one should not go to Migraciones for the additional 3-month extension under any circumstances, because, well, Migraciones sucks.
The argument of the #1 crowd is that while the practice of constantly renewing your visa this way is not technically legal, it does provide you with a valid tourist visa at all times, should you encounter any legal problems or be detained. In principle, that seems important.
The thrust of the #2 camp is: (1) Since the law provides that a tourist can stay a maximum of 6 months out of the year, a year's worth of 90-day renewal stamps is functionally no less illicit. (2) If there were a clamp-down on permatourist practices, the Colonia renewal route (and similar) would be a good way to do that. One could, in theory, find onesself stuck in Uruguay, though there seems to be no precedent for that. (3) AR$300 is a small price to pay, and one can come back the next day--departing on an expired tourist visa does not bar one from receiving another tourist stamp, as soon as the next day. (4) To that point, there are no criminal, only civil penalties for visa violations at this time.
#2's claims seem sound, provided they are factually correct, but don't instinctively sit well with me. What if I were detained by police and found to be on a long-expired visa? It makes me quite uneasy to actually live on an expired visa, just in principle. What if there were significant legislative changes to crack down on permatourists and illegal immigrants? Wouldn't that affect people with expired tourist visas more than anyone else? I am particularly concerned that (3) could change at any time. It seems like a non-expired visa, albeit one procured via a dubious route, might be more palatable.
On the other hand, I know of people that have lived in Argentina for upwards of a decade via either the #1 or #2 approach, seemingly without any real repercussions.
I understand that after a period of some years, variously described as either two years or five, I can petition for citizenship, and that the process of doing so is judicial in nature and thus entirely parallel to the nature of one's continued residence from an immigration perspective. However, I think that's a little premature at this point. I'm just trying to figure out how I can stay for a few years.
Please advise?
I suppose this question is really about enforcement and enforceability, more than anything else.
I'm one of those self-employed individuals who earns income through a US-based entity, so, as far as I know, I do not fall into any of the admissible legal residence categories.
I'm not:
- Prospectively employed by an Argentine concern that can sponsor a work residency visa for me.
- A retiree or the recipient of an irrevocable trust.
- Married to an Argentine.
- Ancestrally or natively Argentine.
- Student.
- Academic, scientist or distinguished specialist of national significance.
- Athlete.or artist.
- Asylum-seekers, refugee, or migrant worker.
- Investor.
- etc.
As far as I know, that pretty much leaves being a "permatourist" as an option. Am I wrong? As far as I know, I do not qualify for any kind of residency in Argentina. Unless I'm wrong, I'm going to start with that premise.
There seem to be two predominant schools of thought:
1. The "go to Colonia every ~90 days" school.
2. The "don't go to Colonia, just overstay your tourist visa for as long as you like, whenever you like, and pay the 300 pesos every time you want to leave" school.
There seems to be broad agreement that one should not go to Migraciones for the additional 3-month extension under any circumstances, because, well, Migraciones sucks.
The argument of the #1 crowd is that while the practice of constantly renewing your visa this way is not technically legal, it does provide you with a valid tourist visa at all times, should you encounter any legal problems or be detained. In principle, that seems important.
The thrust of the #2 camp is: (1) Since the law provides that a tourist can stay a maximum of 6 months out of the year, a year's worth of 90-day renewal stamps is functionally no less illicit. (2) If there were a clamp-down on permatourist practices, the Colonia renewal route (and similar) would be a good way to do that. One could, in theory, find onesself stuck in Uruguay, though there seems to be no precedent for that. (3) AR$300 is a small price to pay, and one can come back the next day--departing on an expired tourist visa does not bar one from receiving another tourist stamp, as soon as the next day. (4) To that point, there are no criminal, only civil penalties for visa violations at this time.
#2's claims seem sound, provided they are factually correct, but don't instinctively sit well with me. What if I were detained by police and found to be on a long-expired visa? It makes me quite uneasy to actually live on an expired visa, just in principle. What if there were significant legislative changes to crack down on permatourists and illegal immigrants? Wouldn't that affect people with expired tourist visas more than anyone else? I am particularly concerned that (3) could change at any time. It seems like a non-expired visa, albeit one procured via a dubious route, might be more palatable.
On the other hand, I know of people that have lived in Argentina for upwards of a decade via either the #1 or #2 approach, seemingly without any real repercussions.
I understand that after a period of some years, variously described as either two years or five, I can petition for citizenship, and that the process of doing so is judicial in nature and thus entirely parallel to the nature of one's continued residence from an immigration perspective. However, I think that's a little premature at this point. I'm just trying to figure out how I can stay for a few years.
Please advise?