Citizenship and migration DNU declared unconstitutional June 30th 2026

[Alby]

My (paid) AI says it is a non-existent rule. It traced the Migration Law through to article 51, which apparently states that students have the right to work and places no limit on the amount.

It goes on to a detailed analysis of the matter, looking at various DMN dispositions and finds no limit. It then looks at labor law, and finds nothing. It then discovered that someone who enters on a transitory visa to study (which is a different category altogether--as per Steve's information--for short term fellowships and exchanges and the like) does have to seek approval from DMN to do so (but again no upper limit appears), so that is probably the source of part of the confusion.

 

[Shpongle]

I'm troubled by the fact that anyone would use AI as even a semi-serious source of legal advice or discussion, law being a very nuanced field.

Perhaps that is because those people don't have a direct personal stake in what is being discussed here (as I and various others reading this thread, do). It's hard enough to find a good human lawyer. Let's not muddy the waters further, shall we?

P.S. I'm a software engineer -- arguably one of the top fields to benefit from AI -- and even there, there are things I don't trust AI to do at all, much as I wouldn't trust someone else's teenager with my car keys. Without knowing the field you are working in very well, AI can rapidly muddy the waters around you, as you have little to no basis for critical analysis of what the AI is telling you.

 

[steveinbsas]

I'm troubled by the fact that anyone would use AI as even a semi-serious source of legal advice or discussion, law being a very nuanced field.

Perhaps that is because those people don't have a direct personal stake in what is being discussed here (as I and various others reading this thread, do). It's hard enough to find a good human lawyer. Let's not muddy the waters further, shall we?

P.S. I'm a software engineer -- arguably one of the top fields to benefit from AI -- and even there, there are things I don't trust AI to do at all, much as I wouldn't trust someone else's teenager with my car keys. Without knowing the field you are working in very well, AI can rapidly muddy the waters around you, as you have little to no basis for critical analysis of what the AI is telling you.

I actually have personal experience with the citizenship processes in the Federal Court. At the time, a lawyer was not required and I was guided through the process step by step by the court itself after applying in person without a lawyer.

It is still possible to apply for citizenship at a Federal Court, but until the Supreme Court rules that the decree of 29 de mayo which gave migraciones the power to grant citizenship is unconstitutional, restorimg total control of citizenship to the Federal Courts, a lawyer is necessary in each case challenge the constitutionality of the decree and at this point not all judges are accepting the cases

As Bajo_cero2 indicated, it may be bettrr to start a case farther away from the capitol, hoping the case will move forward faster amd with less judicial resistance

I asked Google AI several questions about this and got answers that were consistent with what I previously wrote in the above paragraphs. I won't paste the answers here, but I will suggest that anyone who wants or is desperate enough to apply for citizenship before the Suprema Court rules on the constitutionality of the decree to ask a lawyer. At this point, they will need one to present their case anyway.

It's just my opinion, but asking an AI (including Google) as many questions as they can think of first might help them build a base of questions to ask a lawyer before they actually agree to pay one to initiate their case.

 

[Shpongle]

I actually have personal experience with the citizenship processes in the Federal Court. At the time, a lawyer was not required and I was guided through the process step by step by the court itself after applying in person without a lawyer.

It is still possible to apply for citizenship at a Federal Court, but until the Supreme Court rules that the decree of 29 de mayo which gave migraciones the power to grant citizenship is unconstitutional, restorimg total control of citizenship to the Federal Courts, a lawyer is necessary in each case challenge the constitutionality of the decree and at this point not all judges are accepting the cases

As Bajo_cero2 indicated, it may be bettrr to start a case farther away from the capitol, hoping the case will move forward faster amd with less judicial resistance

I asked Google AI several questions about this and got answers that were consistent with what I previously wrote in the above paragraphs. I won't paste the answers here, but I will suggest that anyone who wants or is desperate enough to apply for citizenship before the Suprema Court rules on the constitutionality of the decree to ask a lawyer. At this point, they will need one to present their case anyway.

It's just my opinion, but asking an AI (including Google) as many questions as they can think of first might help them build a base of questions to ask a lawyer before they actually agree to pay one to initiate their case.

Right. I agree that it doesn't hurt to ask an AI beforehand, I did exactly that last week before meeting with lawyers -- even while taking the AI's suggestions with a very large pinch of salt. And I hope that's what anyone reading this, will do as well. My fear is there are readers of this forum who will take AI comments as fact.

I was advised also that it is easier to go through juzgado federal in the provinces, but that for any process through Migraciones, BA and Mar del Plata continue to be the more expedient choice.

Interestingly, I was also advised that it is better to wait and let the Migraciones' residency process complete (especially if your toma de vista is favorable) *before* going for citizenship. That surprised me, frankly. I think it has to do with not delaying one's DNI any more than necessary. Perhaps someone else has experience / advice on this.

 

[steveinbsas]

Right. I agree that it doesn't hurt to ask an AI beforehand, I did exactly that last week before meeting with lawyers -- even while taking the AI's suggestions with a very large pinch of salt. And I hope that's what anyone reading this, will do as well. My fear is there are readers of this forum who will take AI comments as fact.

Earlier this evening I asked Google AI "Are There any well known lawyers in Argentina who specialize in citizenship for foreigners without a DNI or residency of legal status with migraciones."

The answer was far more detailed than I expected and I did not detect any factual errors when I read through it.

I encourage anyone who is interested in the topic of Argentine citizenship as well as the factual accuracy of AI to ask exactly the same question and share their their thoughts, especially if they catch something that I missed and will share it in a reply to this post.

I was advised also that it is easier to go through juzgado federal in the provinces, but that for any process through Migraciones, BA and Mar del Plata continue to be the more expedient choice.

In my opinion, this will probably remain the case until (and if) the decreto is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If and when that happens, all courts "should" again accept applications for citizenship without requiring a lawyer, at least from foreigners who meet the cours' requirements.

If the decreto stands, then perhaps it will continue to be necessary to have a lawyer present the case, but I wonder if there may be some courts who won't even accept them after the SC makes it's ruling which upholds the decreto.

Only time will tell.

Interestingly, I was also advised that it is better to wait and let the Migraciones' residency process complete (especially if your toma de vista is favorable) *before* going for citizenship. That surprised me, frankly. I think it has to do with not delaying one's DNI any more than necessary. Perhaps someone else has experience / advice on this.

If my memory is correct, all of the Federal Courts require that the foreign applicants have a DNI if applying for citizenship without a lawyer.

As pointed out in the Google AI answer í recieved when I asked the question in this post, the Argentine Constitution does not require that the applicant for citizenship have a DNI. One "well known" Argentine lawyer I know of has built his strategy on this fact.

 

[Konner_Long]

Shot in the dark here but does anyone know when the SC will rule on this DNU? I'm nearly done year 1 of 3 of the temp visa and married to an Argentinian and would love to apply for citizenship after year 2 if this dnu gets killed.