Changes for "permatourists"

[Bajo_cero2]

Actually I believe that the argument that an illegal immigrant is eligible for citizenship based on the fact that they have had more than 2 years of physical presence in the country is a very poor argument and will lose. Here is why: every time the person re-enters Argentina on a 90 tourist visa, the immigration officer asks what their intention is in Argentina. The person always says "tourism", because that is the only way they can get the 90 day tourist visa. It is this statement "Tourism" that is the problem - if someone's intention is tourism, then they clearly cannot be a resident in that same country as well. The person has thus stated to an immigration officer that they do not live (they do not reside) in Argentina. So how can they later state before a judge that they are a resident of Argentina? Obviously one of the statements is a lie. They have misrepresented themselves. That is why this argument will fail.

The case I posted about the Supreme Court was precisely about an immigrant who was illegally in Argentina.

To lie isn´t illegal when you use it to defend yourself. Typical mistake from common law legal system (US, UK and common wealth countries).

In your "analysis" you are mixing two levels, administrative and Constitutional. I will use an analogy to teach you why you are wrong. Imagine your best friend is a compulsive womanizer. But he is your friend right? Not your husband. So, you are saying he is a bad friend because he is a womanizer. Makes no sense. He probably is a terrible husband because he is cheating his wife with 7 lovers, one per week day. But he still is your best friend and nothing changed because of his private life.

The main problem you have (please, no offense) is your cultural approach. Nobody is "eligible" (American approach, the State makes you a favor), citizenship is a right, not a gift or a favor, and when you have a right you can sue for reclaiming it. That´s why Argentinian Constitution is so unique. We have the most open Constitutional immigration Law in the world. Why? Simple, this Constitution was enacted at the same time that General Roca went to the Patagonia with an army with brand new machine guns. Until them Mapuches indians were attacking Buenos Aires city with their cavalry whenever they wanted. Suddenly they had a huge country with no people to cultivate the land. Alberdi and Sarmiento, the fathers of the Constitution believed that the big issue in this country was the lack of people. In 1869 there were 1.700.000 people here.
Since the CN was enacted until 1915 (35 years) 5.000.000 people arrived.
http://html.rincondelvago.com/inmigracion-en-argentina_3.html
Regards

 

[esllou]

here is my situation: I am the classic permatourist. Arrived in Jan '09, have been over to colonia every three months. I'm now in europe having left 3 weeks ago and will be back in BA in a few days...with nearly two years' worth of entry/exit stamps in my passport.

I don't think I'll have any problems coming back in via Ezeiza, but I see problems further down the line once I start the colonia run again (first trip over due in november)

I live off savings in a UK account so what is the best option for me? It's not really "earnings", just savings. If necessary, I could try and open an account in argentina and put money in there...would that help??

I'm with an argentine girl and we've spoken about the possibility of marriage next year to solve these legal problems...would union civil give me residency rights too?

basically, once I'm back in BA next week, which of these three options would be better?

a) go to colonia in november, march, june, etc. Sounds like immigration at colonia will start getting stricter though I've been reading exactly the same thing on this forum for two years and it's NEVER happened.

b) stay in BA and keep my head down. The next time I leave the country is likely to be my last time...but maybe not! If I leave after staying on a tourist visa for a year, am I likely to be banned from argentina forever?

c) try and legalise my position. With someone living here on savings in a foreign account, what is my best path to legality or semi-legality?

thanks very much in advance

 

[steveinbsas]

That´s right.
Other requisites depends from judge to judge because this is interpretation of the National Constitution. If you don´t fill fit them you need a lawyer for start a case.

Where to go? Federal Chamber with jurisdiction over your address.

Ciudad de Buenos Aires: Federal Camber civil y comercial, pb of the Palacio de Tribunales, office 2083.
Requisites:
1) DNI or cédula de identidad and xerox
2) Police address certificate
3) Birth certificate (with same requisites than DGM). If they keept it, ask for a certified xerox to DGM
4) Prove of legal way of living
5) 18 years old or more
6) Address in Buenos Aires city
7) 2 years of continue and immediate residence in the country.

If you don´t full fit this requisites, then you need a lawyer and start a case

Regards

Thank you. And where would I go if I don't live in the city of Buenos Aires?

I am living in Punta Alta near Bahia Blanca.

 

[ghost]

The case I posted about the Supreme Court was precisely about an immigrant who was illegally in Argentina.

To lie isn´t illegal when you use it to defend yourself. Typical mistake from common law legal system (US, UK and common wealth countries).

This is very interesting. Are you saying that under Argentine law perjury is not a crime as we view it in US/UK law? [I am not an attorney, but this makes sense] because we expect people to self incriminate which has always seemed useless to me.

 

[French jurist]

I'll try to develop later but one of the reasons might be the differences in-between juridic systems, one of them being the powers of the judge :
- In the "anglo saxon" countries (I don't like too much the word since it is a bit outdated now), the procedure is "accusatory" which gives a preeminent place to lawyers, under the impartial authority of a judge who acts more as a referee.
To be noted too, if I recall, that the "accused" needs to plead guilty or not guilty.

- In Latin America and in most -if not all- of continental Europa, procedure is "inquisitory" and the role of the judge is much more active. Apart of the elements the lawyers will bring to him, the judge will be able to seek further elements by himself to make an opinion.
Big difference from the "accusatory" system : even if the "accused" recognizes he is guilty, this is just one proof amongst others.

---

I can see another big difference as well between both systems :
- Anglo Saxon countries : mix of common law and written laws
- Latin America and continental Europa : written laws bear a much more important role

---

And of course, a Constitutional right is much more important to anything else due to the hierarchy of norms, but this we all know.

 

[French jurist]

Another simple example since bajo cero mentionned it earlier :

There has been here a debate about having small quantities of marijuana. It was and it still is prohibited but last year the Supreme Court finally decided that considering art.19 of the Constitution (private life respect), a person being charged with such a delito is in fact
infridged in his Constitutional rights.
Still, as of now, if such a person gets caught he would probably be detained for a few hours, could lose at first (first degrees of jurisdiction) but ultimately would win going to the Supreme Court.

I think it's about the same story ?

 

[darmanad]

Nobody is "eligible" (American approach, the State makes you a favor), citizenship is a right, not a gift or a favor, and when you have a right you can sue for reclaiming it. That´s why Argentinian Constitution is so unique. We have the most open Constitutional immigration Law in the world.

We are all appreciative for the info and opinions you bring to the forum, however (perhaps because of linguistic ambiguity) I want to clarify the above statment. In the US, the laws regarding qualification for permanent visa status/ citizenship (or any other legal entitlement) are not "favors" that may be conferred or withheld on the whim (or mistake) of any tribunal/judge.
If a judge erroneously fails to apply the law correctly as it has been written (and interpreted by prior court decisions aka stare decisis), the affected person has a right to appeal his case to a higher tribunal in order to seek a correction of the initial judge's error. In other words, all individuals are entitled to the rights (and obligations) provided for by the law.
As a retired US lawyer, I am curious why the concept of stare decisis is not adopted in Arg. My impression (and it is just that) is that results are not nearly as predictable in the Arg justice system as they are in systems utilizing stare decisis. Lack of predictability is very inefficient and often results in injustice.
p.s. Last time I read it the Arg Constitution provided that the President of the nation must be a Catholic. Is that still true?

 

[French jurist]

Last time I read it the Arg Constitution provided that the President of the nation must be a Catholic. Is that still true?

There was a reform in 1994 so it's no longer an obligation, but just before that Menem had to convert himself (he was Muslim)

 

[French jurist]

As a retired US lawyer, I am curious why the concept of stare decisis is not adopted in Arg. My impression (and it is just that) is that results are not nearly as predictable in the Arg justice system as they are in systems utilizing stare decisis. Lack of predictability is very inefficient and often results in injustice.

Stare decisis is mostly specific to anglo saxon countries, but applies to a lesser extent to other countries (jurisprudence).

The SC of Louisiana, still influenced by the Napoleonian Code, defined the difference between stare decisis and constant jurisprudence ( http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04c0473.opn.pdfWillis-Knighton ).
Only one decision could establish a rule in stare decisis, while many would be needed for constant jurisprudence (sorry for the poor translation).

The lack of predictability could be discussed : a sudden new & revolutionnary decision in the stare decisis system could change the deal from la A hasta la Z, or not ?

 

[gunt86]

There isn´t any miscommunication. No offense but there is a huge confusion.

I have read through your responses to my point by point carefully laid out argument. It is very clear that you do not understand the subtleties of my argument. This is definitely because English is not your first language. Actually your responses are mostly non sequitur.
Please don't take this harshly, I do appreciate your response. Furthermore, I have confirmation from an immigration lawyer that my argument is correct. Remember, you are not an immigration lawyer and this is the first time you are looking at this topic.