While I’m very specific, you are not.
In our legal system Judges are banned to judge according to moral, this is why I do not care about it, because I know the legal system.
But you do switch - effortlessly - between discussing law and discussing policy. You speak of how many people live in San Luis - that is irrelevant to the law, it is a policy discussion.
The immigration policy of Argentina, as espoused in the CN and in ley 346, is what it is. That's a legal debate.
Whether these can be modified with a DNU or not (and I think not), is a legal debate.
Whether this
should be the immigration policy here, or whether you think it should be more regulated, is a policy debate not a legal one. It is about what is right - of a society's obligations vis-a-vis newcomers, vs. its obligations to its own.
And if you happen to believe that it should be more closed, if you further believe that conflating such a position with Nazism is absurd, insulting and just unacceptable, then you will support exploiting every legal avenue within the system to tighten things up. Much as in the US, Obama couldn't abolish the Cuba sanctions - they are enshrined in law - but he could and did change the reglamento to substantially reduce them, sometimes all but completely.
There is a difference between going to San Luis and opening a factory or business (or even going to work for one), and coming to Capital and living off the welfare state. The combination of a safety net available to all and no immigration controls is a rather combustible one.
To the best of my knowledge, the doctors are not working pro bono, nor should they. You want an honest conversation about health care for all, including immigrants and/or medical tourists, great. But acknowledge that
someone is paying for this.
I have the feeling that for you is like some kind of taboo to talk or discuss about nazism
Depends on context. You know? Context.
If we were discussing the equivalent of the Japanese internment happening to Bolivians one fine day? By no means - it would be appropriate.
But applied to an immigration debate? Sacrilege.
Again - if the Nazis' crimes were limited to expelling non-citizens on flimsy grounds - even if they'd only expelled non-citizen
Jews on flimsy grounds -
you would never have heard of the Nazis. You speak of Baumbach and transfer of authority from courts to the administrative state - I wonder when was the last time you read the
Nuremberg Laws.
Dismissal of Jews (and all non-Aryans) from the civil service was not done by any bureaucratic agency - it was done
via a law.
The difference between a judicial system and an administrative one, and the propensity of the latter to be abused, can be easily understood without
argumentum ad hitlerum. And if you think that racism is involved, just say so.
I am sure - seriously, not being facetious - that study of the legal doctrines of the NSDAP makes for fascinating study. As does study of cross-pollination with other legal systems. But again - to refer to the immigration policy of Argentina as Nazi-like, is to be a jerk. It is to swallow a suppository of Godwin's Law laced with LSD.
Just stop, for the sake of preserving whatever shred of credibility you may yet have.