DNU 70/2017 abolished!

[Alpinista]

What i like about Argentina that it is generally speaking much less xenophobic than other countries.
The open door policy with basically free healthcare and education is probably quite unique in this world.

However, is this really beneficial for the country?
1) is it morally acceptable that Argentina pays for foreign citizens eye surgeries when you cant even provide basic services for your own people (50% poor).
2) why is it beneficiary for Argentina to pay for Brazilian medicine students who leave the country as soon as they finish the studies?
3) FallenAngel mentioned “enterprising people who come here to fulfill their potential”. This sounds good. But in reality no one is coming to Argentina to start a business. Imagine a young entrepreneurial guy with a bit of cash, great ideas and a lot of ambitions. This guy will never set foot in Argentina. So naturally the immigration we see here is not very well qualified.

Regarding the extradition of foreign criminals: I always believe that as a foreign resident you have to accept the local rules. I might not like them, but as a guest I am bound to respect them. In case I break the rules, how could I morally claim to still have a right to live in a country whose house rules I have broken. I am not talking about some minor misdemeanors, but felonies which had a few years of prison. I agree that the bar for those who have strong family ties here should very high. But as of a certain point, in my view the country’s interest to get rid of them should be rated higher.

 

[Ceviche]

However, is this really beneficial for the country?

2) why is it beneficiary for Argentina to pay for Brazilian medicine students who leave the country as soon as they finish the studies?

This one really sets my blood boiling. How do these Brazilian medecine students benefit Argentina.. I am unable to solve this mystery.

 

[Alpinista]

This one really sets my blood boiling. How do these Brazilian medecine students benefit Argentina.. I am unable to solve this mystery.

You might want to elaborate your point.

i am just questioning why a chronically bankrupt country who cannot provide for its own citizens is offering free healthcare and education for the rest of the continent. I dont blame those who take advantage of it, i just think that it is bottom line not beneficial for the country.

 

[Ries]

I know several people who came to Argentina to start businesses. Its really very common. My neighborhood has a couple of great bolivian run verdurlarias, but beyond that, I know a guy who has something like 5 restaurants now, and before the pandemic employed well over 50 people (and is ramping back up now) he arrived with a mochilla and 500$USD. I know others who came from poor countries, and started businesses in CABA that employ people and pay taxes. It happens a lot.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

According to DNM lawyers of Control of Permanency, the only difference with the abolishment of the DNU is that the appeal deadline is 30 days, that precaria allows to travel and that appeals suspend deportation. However, they fall short of the scope of reestablishing the previous regime.
In my opinion, now you can apply for a legal residency beyond the visas categories.

 

[iggysnacks]

According to DNM lawyers of Control of Permanency, the only difference with the abolishment of the DNU is that the appeal deadline is 30 days, that precaria allows to travel and that appeals suspend deportation. However, they fall short of the scope of reestablishing the previous regime.
In my opinion, now you can apply for a legal residency beyond the visas categories.

Does this mean that if i receive a precaria i'll be able to leave the country and return with the precaria, instead of waiting for the DNI to arrive?

Does anyone know whether or not getting a lawyer involved can possibly speed up the residency through marriage process? I'm going to marry a friend in order to get residency, so I can get vaccinated in the states and then return.

 

[dsp27]

CCF 000769/2021
In this case from last month the Judge passed the case to the Fiscal who recommended the case be thrown out because of 70/17 -- as the peticionista has only a precaria. But a few days later after 70/17 was canceled the judge decided to start with the INICIO. Interesting.