Immigration Lawyers

[mc kenna]

As a lawyer, I suppose he gets approached when someone is in trouble or can foresee troubles, so he pictures the worst case scenario you might fall into (and finds a way to save your back). The fact that the law is arbitrarily applied here doesn't mean that you are safe as an illegal alien in Argentina. He works with clients who are in need of legal help, so he is not talking about mainstream cases.

When you hire a professional (a lawyer, a doctor, a consultant, etc.), you either trust him/her 100% or you don't. The worst thing you can do is to change your mind halfway - this could jeopardize the whole situation. Some matters are too complicated to explain to outsiders, that's why there are people specialized on them and you either trust them or not.

---
I did exchange a PM with him once about my situation, and he was extremely honest saying that my case was so straightforward I was good to go on my own (wife of a citizen) and it was of no interest to him.
I contacted him on another instance for a reference about a different legal issue and he promptly provided one.

I think that's the whole concept, you hire a professional to handle your case, but what i think is missing in this culture is the fact that once you start paying( and from what i gather, large ammounts of money) you, the professional, being paid by me, work for me , and report to me on the advancement of my case, meaning you must take the time to explain every step of the process in a cordial professional maner...... i have seen this type of behavior not only with lawyers but with neurosurgeons and the like..... seems to me. that the higher or more important diploma you hold, the less professional you behave....... i have been treated better by tow truck drivers than some of these professionals....i dunno maybe i've been unlucky......but then again, i take no shit from any of these mussolini types.......It is very simple really, this is the problem, i hire you, you fix it and save your preaching for someone who wants to hear it, i want to see results..

 

[Girino]

That's why you don't pay them in full in advance.

 

[ben]

Steve, a thoughtful post. Some thoughts:

I'm not sure if the individual who made this post is aware of the fact that getting residency and citizenship for expats who have complied with the requirements does not require the assistance of a lawyer. Only those who have failed (refused) to comply with the requirements (which are not arbitrary and are easily understood) will find themselves in need of legal representation to deal with their situation.

I actually missed the post you quoted, but substantially it doesn't change all that much.

A close relative of mine is a US immigration attorney, and I spent enough time around the office to have some idea about how things work in various cases. It's safe to say that a substantial part of the work regards cases which the person could do on their own. By which I mean that for someone who wants to sit down and drill down, there are public-facing .gov websites outlining the process in some detail. Nonetheless, many smart people are simply not interested in running the risk of doing getting something important wrong, and losing time and money - or worse - along the way. In fact, some number of the "complicated" cases were cases that should have been straightforward but where the problems stemmed from self-inflicted wounds. And then there are plenty of things which are not secret per se, but which definitely are more likely to be known by a professional. Is that professional obligated to share? Certainly not, and if they do share that is great.

It is true OTOH that virtually everything relating to US immigration/naturalization insanely more complicated (and expensive) than here.

Again - and perhaps I should have only spoken for myself - I never made fun of bajo for not sharing valuable expertise, and never would.

Is the "good doctor always right? Perhaps not. None of us are, but it looks to me like he knows what he is talking about a very high percentage of the time.

As there's a huge difference between "spewing garbage (and) arrant nonsense" regarding residency granted by migraciones and citizenship granted by the federal courts and the "good doctor's" political opinions. I wouldn't include them in the same sentence.

The bit about garbage and arrant nonsense was specifically not as relates (only) to political topics, but rather regarding facts and law. Reasonable people can disagree about positions, or opinions. It's a lot harder for reasonable people to argue regarding facts (and law which can be cited chapter and verse falls under "facts"). My disrespect for bajo stems mainly not from (what I consider) his insane politics, but rather that he plays loose with easily verifiable facts when it suits him. In the very post you cited, I brought 2 examples: the fight between CFK and Macri about where the traspaso de mando should take place, and my recent argument with him about Argentines residing abroad entering Arg on a foreign passport.

Both of these examples are not regarding politics. Reasonable people can disagree regarding where the traspaso de mando should take place. But no disagreement can be had regarding what the Constitución Nacional says on the subject, because the CN does not mention this ceremony at all. So when a lawyer - who not only should know better, but certainly does know better - starts arguing that doing the ceremonial part in the Casa Rosada is unconstitutional, when he knows perfectly well that the Constitution discusses the oath of office and nothing more, that undermines him not as a citizen but as a lawyer. Put simply, he is prepared to misrepresent the facts as he clearly knows them.

Same thing regarding the passport argument. At the outset, bajo simply stated the wrong position. Whereas the govenment (specifically DNM Disposición 2742/2009) expressly allows Argentines who don't live here to enter and exit Argentina for up to 180 days on the foreign passport, bajo characterized this as a crime, and stated that doing this could land you in jail. That's fine, Argentines entering Argentina need not be something he must be intimately familiar with: after all, his business at migraciones is with foreigners, not Argentines. But 3 pages into the debate, and after having chapter and verse quoted to him, he started moving the goalposts and started falling back on dodging tactics; referring to the Constitution (a total non-sequitur); alluding to potential conflicts between DNM policy and the underlying law; and, of course, professional secret.

Again, reasonable people can argue whether this should be the law. But that this is the government's position for a quarter-century, is indisputable. At the very very most, bajo's points regarding the said conflicts may be academically interesting; but absent a Court directive, practically speaking, the position of the agency tasked with enforcing the migraciones law, is the law. No government employee can defy longstanding DNM policy based on how he - or bajo - reads the law. That would be insane. And above all - none of this ever happened. Pressed for a case where anything similar to what he suggests ever happened, the doctor hedged and hedged then ducked behind professional secret - again.

Let me reiterate that again. It would be one thing if bajo came out and said, "yes this is DNM policy but I believe DNM is wrong on this". That could be an interesting discussion. But he said no such thing. He simply said that following DNM regulations in force since 1992 could land you in jail. With a straight face. With no evidence of this ever happening. Is that normal?

So when I talk of garbage, I am talking not only (nor chiefly) about his politics, nor of his obnoxious style in said discussion of politics. No, I speak of a lawyer who should and does know better, but misrepresents things he knows to not be true, simply to further his point. You better believe that undermines him as a lawyer.

Since I received first received my temporary residency in 2006 I have continuously stressed that the services of a lawyer are required only in extremely rare circumstances. I regard the work the "good doctor" is doing for those who seek citizenship without having residency granted by migraciones as "good" work, but I have never for a second thought his motives are altruistic.

PS: And if I ever do need a lawyer, I would not try to find one whose personality could be described as warm and bubbly.

PS2: Dr. Rubilar has shared "information on how to easily resolve an issue dealing with immigration " every time he has made the suggestion to "regularize your status" those who haven't.

It may sound "harsh" but if someone can't comply with the regulations of migracioes to obtain residency they have no "right" to stay in Argentina unless they seek citizenship.

Dr Rubilar isn't the only lawyer offering "citizenship representation" and no one is required to hire him. If anyone wants a lawyer who will hold their hand throughout the process, sing them to sleep at night, and change their diapers when they get too scared to hold it all in, the "good doctor" might not be the best choice.

There can be room for some debate regarding how much is a lawyer responsible, beyond winning the case, to keep the client informed. There is some space in-between "changing their diapers" (or acting as a shrink, to quote the bajo) and being professional with your clients. A lawyer who won the case but did little to reassure the client about the process, in the face of plenty of disinformation, is unprofessional. And only in this country need this be said.

 

[steveinbsas]

Great post, Ben. Very well put.

Obviously, the "good doctor" does not have a bedside manner that some of his patients find comforting. Hopefully, any future clients he may "attract" from this group will have read these posts and have a good idea of what to expect, including the ones who don't follow his advise/instructions as their case progresses.

 

[Sockhopper]

ben,
I'm fascinated by your saying the folllowing:
"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Argentines living abroad can enter the country on a temporary basis on a foreign passport. This is the case for the past 20 years. The government says this - on the migraciones website and that of every Arg consulate in the world. Everyone knows this. Everyone does this."[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Are you certain of your claim? Did you obtain professional Arg legal advice affirming your interpretation? [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I ask because every country I know applies a basic rule to a holder of dual nationality. When entering either of one's own countries of citizenship, he must present his passport of THAT particular country to ITS authorities. To not present THAT passport and, instead, to present another raises a strong suspicion of fraudulent usage of one's dual nationality. A country needs to know when and that one of its OWN citizens is re-entering IT, physically is in it, or is leaving it [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]To be caught hiding one's citizenship of a country that he's entering risks big trouble. It would also place an onus on that person to then prove that he's not hiding the fact that he belongs to that country as one of its citizens for the purpose of his hiding a crime. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Whereas it's fine to present either of your passports as you choose to any country of which you are NOT a citizen, you can't do this when going into, while being in or leaving a country that is your own. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]If Argentina doesn't conform with that convention of how one properly and forthrightly uses his dual or multiple nationalities, then Arg would be effectively forfeiting a power that all countries have and use to exercise control over their own people. How would doing this advance Argentina's interests?[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]What reasons have you seen or do you know of for an Argentine not presenting his Arg passport to Arg authorities? [/background]

Could you be reading into Migraciones' and Argentine consulates' websites an interpretation that misrepresents or misapplies what they say or the circumstances that they cover?

Also, when you say "Argentines living abroad", I presume you mean they're actual citizens of where they're living because you go on to say that they later present their 'foreign passport' to Arg Immigration. Please clarify if those people are dual nationals or are just residing outside Arg (and Mercosur) legally. Certainly, just showing some residency certificate or card alone from another continent wouldn't be a substitute for needing to produce a passport showing citizenship which is what immigration authorities everywhere want to see.

 

[EJLarson]

ben,
I'm fascinated by your saying the folllowing:
"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Argentines living abroad can enter the country on a temporary basis on a foreign passport. This is the case for the past 20 years. The government says this - on the migraciones website and that of every Arg consulate in the world. Everyone knows this. Everyone does this."[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Are you certain of your claim? Did you obtain professional Arg legal advice affirming your interpretation? [/background]

Argentine citizens with US passports can travel to/from Argentina using the US credentials only. My wife is one of those and does it at least twice a year. Migraciónes knows she has dual citizenship because Argentina is listed as place of birth on the US passport and, as we know, she retains Argentine citizenship even though naturalized in another country. They stamp her passport “Argentina” but never have asked to see her Argentine document. They KNOW she’s Argentine from the first glance - no fraud is possible, to answer your main concern.

What I’m pretty sure you can’t do (she’s never tried) is mix and match: enter on US and leave on Argentine, or vice versa. The in/out stamps have to correspond.

 

[Girino]

Well, my MIL's Argentinian passport has expired but, just like in the case of EJLarson's wife, she uses her Italian passport to leave and exit the country. She was born here, so no doubt over the fact she is Argentinian.

 

[ben]

Sockhopper:

There is nothing mystical about this. It's all written black on white.
In the aforelinked thread I quoted the relevant texts, and you tell me if I'm reading something into it. I'll recap below.

From the website of Dirección Nacional de Migraciones (emphasis mine):

[sub]B ) Argentinos que se hubieran naturalizado en países con los cuales la República Argentina NO ha suscripto Convenio de Doble Nacionalidad.[/sub]​

[sub]Serán considerados, a todos los efectos como argentinos.[/sub]​

[sub]1- Ingreso[/sub]​

[sub]En el caso de presentar solamente documento de viaje hábil de la nacionalidad adquirida se intervendrá el mismo o se expedirá la tarjeta pertinente, estampándose el sello de ingreso con la leyenda "ARGENTINO - 180 DIAS" manuscrita bajo el sello.[/sub]​

[sub]En caso en que no constare la condición de argentino en la documentación extranjera y el ingresante la invocara, deberá acreditar dicho extremo mediante la presentación de Documento de Identidad argentino.[/sub]​

[sub]2 - Egreso[/sub]​

[sub]Para salir del país deberán hacerlo con la documentación argentina pertinente, salvo que la permanencia en el país no hubiere excedido el plazo de CIENTO OCHENTA (180) días corridos, circunstancia ésta que les permitirá salir con el documento de viaje de su nacionalidad adquirida, que hubieren utilizado para ingresar al país.[/sub]​

Free Translation:

[sub]B ) Argentines that have been naturalized in countries with which the Argentine Republic has NOT signed an Agreement concerning dual nationality.[/sub]​

[sub]Such persons will be considered in all aspects as Argentines.[/sub]​

[sub]1- Entry[/sub]​

[sub]In the case such a person presents only a valid travel document issued by the country of acquired citizenship, the same will be processed or a pertinent card will be issued, with the entry stamp being stamped with the text "ARGENTINO - 180 DIAS" underneath the stamp.[/sub]​

[sub]In case the Argentine status is not evidenced in the foreign document and the entrant invokes it, such status will have to be proven by means of presenting an Argentine DNI. [/sub]​

[sub]2 - Exit [/sub]​

[sub]Exiting the country must be using the pertinent Argentine documentation, except when the presence in the country has not exceeded the term of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) consecutive days, which circumstance will permit to depart on the travel document of the acquired nationality, which was used to enter the country.[/sub]​

The same information is posted on the website of practically every Argentine diplomatic mission in the world.

The relevant DNM regulation is posted here.

Broadly speaking, Argentina is by no means the only country that allows this. Canada allowed this until late last year (and still allows it for US passport holders). [sub](And the reason they abolished it is actually very technical - foreign nationals now need to apply for an eTA before traveling to Canada, and Canadians aren't able to get an eTA - it's by definition only for foreigners. Ergo, Canadians can only travel on a Canadian passport).[/sub]

Every country sets its own entry/exit requirements. Most, it is true, require their nationals to enter on their own passport. But not all.

 

[Ceviche]

Ben, good info.

But personally ( no legal facts or date to back it up with), I feel, that it may be dangerous for a new ( not born in Arg) citizen to do so, despite the law stating the opposite.

 

[ben]

Well, I know plenty of people who do this routinely. I have not heard of ANY cases where this was an issue.

As above, no reason it would be. It's one thing when this regulation was new. But it's been on the books for twenty five years.

During our argument on the subject I also asked bajo point blank, several times, if he has ever heard of such a thing happening. That was the only possible justification for an assertion that is, on its face, ludicrous. He responded with everything under the sun - except answer the question. I think I may have a hunch why.

I suspect that your sole reason for feeling this way is because someone you trust said "Be afraid".

And that's exactly why FUD is a thing. Saying "be careful, bad things can happen" - even when backed by precisely nothing - is a very effective tactic.