New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[julian63]

Perhaps because they own the land and the only problem is that some people do not like the architecture and the color of the skin of the inhabitants...

Uusucapion = acquiring title by adverse possession as noted above. But tell me : Are the occupants of V31 paying taxes? Are they paying for utilities? Do you like the architecture? Ever gone there? Don't you think the inhabitants would be better served with decent housing in the suburbs and the possibility of better jobs in construction? Would not the public be better served with decent housing some of which would be subsidized by the developers for middle income folks? Do you really believe that those who want to rehabilitate the area occupied by V31 are motivated by racism? Finally, where the hell is my steak dinner?

 

[sergio]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/americas/argentinas-trump-like-immigration-order-rattles-south-america.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

 

[on the brink]

https://www.nytimes....l?emc=eta1&_r=0

The article overlooks the fact that the decree is aimed at foreigners with criminal records, either in their own countries or here. Argentines are tired of cases like the one of the Peruvian boy who shot a kid during a holdup, was sent by her trafficking mother to stay with his criminal-record father in Chile, and was then sent to Peru. While the mother, accused of dealing drugs, is still in Buenos Aires.

 

[Somewhereinba]

The article overlooks the fact that the decree is aimed at foreigners with criminal records, either in their own countries or here. Argentines are tired of cases like the one of the Peruvian boy who shot a kid during a holdup, was sent by her trafficking mother to stay with his criminal-record father in Chile, and was then send to Peru. While the mother, accused of dealing drugs, is still in Buenos Aires.

Criminals are good people who deserve the right to live in Argentina no matter what border they crossed illegally according to our resident lawyer Bajo. I'd like him to move into one of these neighbourhoods and see how he goes - it's easy for him to toot their horn when his business depends on migration of aliens.

 

[on the brink]

Criminals are good people who deserve the right to live in Argentina no matter what border they crossed illegally according to our resident lawyer Bajo. I'd like him to move into one of these neighbourhoods and see how he goes - it's easy for him to toot their horn when his business depends on migration of aliens.

Rembember that Kirckner's boot-licker newsman, VIctor Hugo Morales? He extolled the advantages of living in the Villa 31 - "so convenient, you can just walk to movie theatres" - while residing in Puerto Madero, and vacationing in his New York apartment.

 

[on the brink]

https://www.nytimes....l?emc=eta1&_r=0

In my view, a more accurate article here:

http://en.mercopress...or-with-records

 

[ben]

You can have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both.

I for one, will always advocate for open borders.

The most apt comment on this subject, by far. Bonus points for the brevity.

It is one thing to encourage immigration when viewed in its original context, which is to have people come and help settle the land. (Though the intent of the immigration-friendly NC appears to be, to use bajo_cero-style lingo, racist and genocidal: see below).

It is entirely another thing when people are coming en masse with the clear and stated (or unstated) intent of taking advantage of the existing welfare state, which by definition cannot be a blank check to the population of the world. That just doesn't work.

When the NC was written with its open borders, it was not predicated on the assumption that the government (=the existing taxpayers) will be subsidizing said immigrants' stay here.

===

Regarding squatter's rights vs. usucaption:

Per Wikipedia, usucaption, at least as conceived, is a mechanism for filling in holes in procedure regarding a sale/transfer of property that actually took place. When there is little serious contention that anyone ever purchased the property from anyone, that is called adverse possession, aka squatter's rights. And while it is true that squatter's rights may be legally valid and even result in full title to the said property, clearly they are valid in a "too bad!" sort of way. Which is worth bearing in mind when considering similarly "tough-luck-it's-legal" remedies. Such as, say, eminent domain.

===

Finally, one other point: the immigration guarantees by the Constitution, are not quite as neutral and innocent as one would assume simply by hearing about it second-hand. Even a cursory reading of the constitution finds the language - retained from the original 1953 version - that "The Federal Government will encourage European immigration". Why specifically European? Perhaps because the main aim of the authorities at the time the NC was drafted was to bring the territory and indigenous populations under the state's control, and any and all European immigration would help to that end. (And this is not an issue that lacks relevance today: the Argentine indifference/hostility to indigenous peoples' (for example: casique/Qom) issues - except when electorally convenient - has continued up to and including Macri's administration, and notoriously so in the Kirchner era).

Something to have in mind when you are accused of racism for contemplating that eliminating a gigantic slum from the very center of the city just might be a good idea on many levels. And on the other hand, something to bear in mind when applying the spirit of the original constitution to today's situation. There is a big difference between my owning a huge tract of land, far bigger than I could do anything with myself, and inviting other people to come help me settle it, and on the other hand taking any permissions I may have given at the time as carte blanche for anyone and everyone to enter my home, help themselves to what's in the fridge, urinate on the beds, and claim title.

 

[tangobob]

I am a bit of a Johnny come lately to this argument. I just love the way it degenerated into a Brexit debate. For the guy who was worried about bringing in his Argentine wife, you misunderstand the Brexit debate.

Britain under EU law has been overrun by astern Europeans working for gangmasters and living in hovels. We the British have always welcomed people from all over the world and the point is that world citizens are not welcomed in Europe. You are far more likely to receive a welcome in the UK under Brexit than the EU

 

[ben]

Addenda / errata re my earlier post:

When referring to original version of the NC, I meant of course 1853 not 1953.

And I omitted reference to the Conquest of the Desert campaign waged by the Argentine military in that period, which campaign provides background for my contention that the attitude of that time toward immigration, as embodied in the NC immigration policy, was not simply racist but genocidal, ethnic cleansing and all the other fine words that bajo enjoys hurling at Macri.

 

[mc kenna]

So, then the Brits are within their right about the Falklands , if the law in Argentina explains that even when in bad faith, territories are taken, after 20 years it becomes ok by law , just curious how this Republic keeps demanding territories taken so long ago and made a better place by the locals with generations on that land.....i suspect double standards mmmmm prehaps some sort of prejudice against people from Great Britain?..... or perhaps you need to be a darker shade of skin for this law to apply....