Immigration changes: Health, Education, Deportation

[whattodo]

For other visas than the one based on marriage with an Argentine citizen, the 'ingreso regular' is already in place. My (Argentine) partner views the new measures to be aimed at serving the right wing voters, who are primarily negative about the influx of immigrants from countries as Bolivia and Peru. Typically, immigrants from those countries will have problems proving sufficient means.

Agree 100% with your partner’s views, I too believe that.

And again, yes, ingreso regular is already in place. It doesn’t seem anything particularly new, and I don’t think it’ll amount to anything like the number required for the Rentista Visa (~$2000).

 

[steveinbsas]

Yes Steve, agreed, I too understand it the same. As follows:

• You’ll need two (completely?) uninterrupted and of course documented years for citizenship

Whether or not the requirement for two full years of uninterrupted physical presence in the country stands, the court will get your record directly from migraciones. The applicant for citizenship should not have to provide additional documentation.

• You won’t ‘automatically’ get permanent residency as a spouse or parent anymore, but will have to show sufficient ties, means and a clean record.

While I wonder if the new requirements will actually stipulate that the parents of an Argentine child will not be able to "automatically" get permanent residency and only be able to apply for temporary residency for three years, and be required to "show sufficient ties, means and a clean record" every year for at least three years (but only two years if they qualify for citizenship.

But as I said previously, the ability to demonstrate a clean record and ‘ingreso regular’ are already listed as requirements when applying for permanent residency.

I can say, based on my own experience, that repeating the process to renew temporary residency year after year consumes time and money (likely more so for those with the visa rentista or pensiona than being married to or the partner of an Argentine citizen.

Although from what I understand, evidence of the ‘ingreso regular’ isn’t typically asked for at the moment. With regard to ties, I would like to think that having a spouse or family member here would be a demonstration of exactly that...

It's too soon to know what means test (if any) might apply to the foreign spouse or partner of an Argentine citizen, whether or not they have children. Hopefully, this won't be vague enough for the foreigner to lose too much sleep over.

...I am hoping that much of it is fluff talk regarding the ‘stricter’ permanent residency requirements. It certainly reads like that to me. Worst case, Migraciones ask for more documentation - which they already warn that they might - and things just take a little longer.

It will certainly be "fluff" if the new requirements still allow foreigners to obtain permanent residency based on marriage or civil union with an Argentine citizen.

Otherwise....

I read an article today (perhaps it was on here) about the things that have already been pushed through. Pretty much all targeting criminals. So, again, hoping things aren’t as bad as I first feared!

Even if it looks as bad as you first feared, you can be assured that there will be Argentine lawyers fighting against the requirements of the new decree.

They may only appear to do so on the behalf of clients, but I know of at least one who is motivated by his principles (philosophy of law) and he already has an impressive record when it comes to challenging decrees regarding Argentine immigration and citizenship.

 

[steveinbsas]

They (the lawyers) may only appear to do so on the behalf of clients, but I know of at least one who is motivated by his principles (philosophy of law) and he already has an impressive record when it comes to challenging decrees regarding Argentine immigration and citizenship.

It's worth noting that the new decree was written, keeping in mind, that provisions of the decree of 2017 were declared unconstitutional as a result of the efforts of the lawyer (and others) that I mentioned in my previous post.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out this time.

 

[IamWaldo]

It's worth noting that the new decree was written, keeping in mind, that provisions of the decree of 2017 were declared unconstitutional as a result of the efforts of the lawyer (and others) that I mentioned in my previous post.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out this time.

Hi Steve,

I always value your opinion, but considering this whole decree and they must know that this will be declared illegal sooner or later..
It came to me that only people with money (read who can afford a good lawyer) can and will be able to protest against that..
That's also the people that they want to 'keep' or 'allow' in the country.

The people who don't have sufficient funds.. will be rejected or extradited but for those people the government doesn't care.

 

[steveinbsas]

Hi Steve,

I always value your opinion, but considering this whole decree and they must know that this will be declared illegal sooner or later..
It came to me that only people with money (read who can afford a good lawyer) can and will be able to protest against that..
That's also the people that they want to 'keep' or 'allow' in the country.

The people who don't have sufficient funds.. will be rejected or extradited but for those people the government doesn't care.

I always value your opinion, but considering this whole decree and they must know that this will be declared illegal sooner or later..

I don't think the "whole decree... will be declared illegal sooner or later."

Parts of it may be ruled unconstitutional, but we won't know which ones for some time and I 'm not sure how much of the new decree "they" will be able to implement in the meantime.

If the decree was indeed written with the previous decree, and the reversal of some of it's provisions in mind, I'm sure "they" also had one specific lawyer in mind.

It came to me that only people with money (read who can afford a good lawyer) can and will be able to protest against that..

That lawyer will not have to rely on any one person or even a group of foreigners who, in the near future would try to seek citizenship. That lawyer might only need one client to press the issue and he won't be served by charging an exorbitant fee.

He will be doing it to preserve his future client base. He deserves admiration for acting on principles, but I don't expect the motive to be altruistic in the least, and I don't expect him to seek financial compensation by charging exorbitant fees in the short run.

That's also the people that they want to 'keep' or 'allow' in the country.

If "they" want to keep people or allow people into the country who have enough money to hire a good lawyer, at least when it comes to people with passive income who will seek temporary residency, all they need to do is raised the monthly income requirement to at least the $2000USD level (where it was at the times it was raised to $8?/.000 and later to $30.000).

The people who don't have sufficient funds.. will be rejected or extradited but for those people the government doesn't care.

In the minds of those who wrote the new decree, the "people who don't have sufficient funds" to support themselves in Argentina without being a drain on the resources of the country and also follow it's legal provisions should be rejected or deported. The Argentine citizens are their priority.

 

[Quilombo]

The idea behind this proyect is to abolish legal residency and citizenship for poors because the 2 years clause is for the villanage, to have children or spouse is for the proletarian class while rentista and inversionista are for nobility and high class so, Milei wants to revival a regime of nobility that exclude most of you.

This is how I interpreted it as well. Bolivians and Paraguayans can come work as albañiles, en negro, working 12 hour days for 5.000 pesos, but he doesn't want them voting for president or having a passport or going to school or the hospital.

I'm not a lawyer like you, and this is your speciality: do you believe these measures can be successfully challenged in court? Do you expect to have to make Amparo claims since some of these violate people's constitutional rights? I remember Macri and Bullrich tired this in 2017 I think and Supreme Court overruled them, do you think this will happen again?