Immigration changes: Health, Education, Deportation

[Bajo_cero2]

If we meet all the new requirements like staying in Argentina soil for 2 years with rentista visa and DNI.Will that help with how long it will be and will be cheaper than other version ?

Lawyers’s fees to challenge a DNU are never cheaper

Would anyone know what's happening to citizenship applications already being processed by the federal courts? The SIL is about 1 step from finishing her process, and it would be bloody annoying if this change mucked everything up.

Art. 45 DNU says they continue under former law under Federal Judges.

 

[Wayne Tompkins]

Update on my OP: I'm told via Grok the proof of health insurance for foreign nationals entering the country goes into effect July 1.

So what's the situation on the ground at this moment? Is proof of health insurance being checked at Ezeiza, Aeropark and Buquebus? Has anyone been denied entry doing a visa run? I have my insurance paperwork and if I'm denied entry, I'll just resume my perpetual traveler career. I've spent the bulk of the last three years in Argentina, coming and going every couple of months as it were, but if this government is telling me I'm not welcome here then so be it. There are other nice places to live.

 

[Nurhak]

Lawyers’s fees to challenge a DNU are never cheaper

Art. 45 DNU says they continue under former law under Federal Judges.

But rentista visa gives DNI and staying at the Argentina soil for 2 years without leaving isn't that meets with the requirements of DNU ? But with that path do we have to go with migraciones which a path no one tried because its new.

 

[Sojourner]

I do not live in Argentina currently, but I have had my DNI (permanent resident) for many years (through my wife who is an Argentine citizen). We usually visit once or twice a year, but we won’t visit this year - probably next Feb at earliest. Does this new law mean I will lose my DNI since it may be 14 months before I return for a visit?

It looks like there may be some room for negotiation on this. Artículo 62 of DNU 366 includes “b) la cancelación de la residencia conforme el inciso e) del artículo 62 conlleva la intimación a regularizar su situación migratoria o la conminación a hacer abandono del país dentro del plazo que se fije, teniendo en consideración las circunstancias fácticas y personales del interesado;” Subparagraph e is the paragraph that defines the requirement that an annual visit is required.

 

[steveinbsas]

It is going to be always available to apply at Court for Federal Citizenship, but it is going to be slower and more expensive.

What advantage, if any, would there be to apply at Court for Federal for Citizenship instead of migraciones?

Going forward, will the judges be able to disregard the new requirement to have continuous legal residency for two years as well as have two years of uninterrupted physical presence in the country before applying for citizenship?

 

[steveinbsas]

What advantage, if any, would there be to apply at Court for Federal for Citizenship instead of migraciones?

Going forward, will the judges be able to disregard the new requirement to have continuous legal residency for two years as well as have two years of uninterrupted physical presence in the country before applying for citizenship?

Also, will migraciones require that the applicant for citizenship be represented by a lawyer, or will they be able to apply without a lawyer?

 

[RichardAlem]

Would anyone know what's happening to citizenship applications already being processed by the federal courts? The SIL is about 1 step from finishing her process, and it would be bloody annoying if this change mucked everything up.

Frank,

Bajo_cero2 was kind enough to reply to my same question by stating that the decree is not retroactive; which was a relief. However, this being Argentina well, you know how things can change. I await a next step from Court # 5 after receiving my Caratula.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

It looks like there may be some room for negotiation on this. Artículo 62 of DNU 366 includes “b) la cancelación de la residencia conforme el inciso e) del artículo 62 conlleva la intimación a regularizar su situación migratoria o la conminación a hacer abandono del país dentro del plazo que se fije, teniendo en consideración las circunstancias fácticas y personales del interesado;” Subparagraph e is the paragraph that defines the requirement that an annual visit is required.

This negotiation you mention is in the room with you, does it speak with you? In public law there is no negotiation at all, administrativa immigration courts are marcial court of a POW system developed at DNU 366/2025.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

What advantage, if any, would there be to apply at Court for Federal for Citizenship instead of migraciones?

Going forward, will the judges be able to disregard the new requirement to have continuous legal residency for two years as well as have two years of uninterrupted physical presence in the country before applying for citizenship?

Federal judges can ignore decrees and declare them unconstitutional.

 

[Sojourner]

This negotiation you mention is in the room with you, does it speak with you? In public law there is no negotiation at all, administrativa immigration courts are marcial court of a POW system developed at DNU 366/2025.

Very much on point. I guess better wording would be something like "You may be invited to present your case (and hope for the best)." I take it as a positive that "personal circumstances" will be considered. I am assuming good faith on the part of migrations to observe the wording of the DNU. Unfortunately good faith is not in the room with me.