New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[wineguy999]

Having mentioned the previous cases that bajo_cero confidently asserted stuff that turned out to be pulled out of his [.] rectal excavations, it ocurred to me that nearly every time bajo quoted something and I took the time to check it out, it turned out to be utter BS.

So I decided to do some reading. And lo and behold, look what I found!

The theory that bajo was/is pushing forward was indeed the case, it appears, from 1984 until late 1991. Per Resolución 2650, adopted at the time that Law Nº 346 was reestablished as the foundation of Argentine nationality law (1984, post military dictatorship), Argentines entering on a foreign passport would have a permanent entry stamp stamped into said passport, with the word ARGENTINO written in. And yes, exiting the country was to be only on Argentine papers. Here is the relevant text of that Resolución (emphasis added):

[sup][...]el argentino, naturalizado en otro país, debe seguir siendo considerado Argentino.[/sup]​

[sup]Al momento del ingreso a la República y en el caso de presentar solamente pasaporte de la nacionalidad adquirida (en el caso de los países limítrofes, documento supletorio: C.I. o L.E. o L.C. o D.N.I.) se les podrá intervenir aquél o expedirle la tarjeta pertinente, según corresponda, estampándose el sello "Permanente" con la leyenda "Argentino" manuscrita bajo el sello.[/sup]​

[sup]Para salir del país deberán hacerlo indefectiblemente con la documentación argentina pertinente.[/sup]​

There were other procedures for citizens of countries that had concluded dual nationality agreements with Argentina, but for everyone else this was how it worked.

But that Resolución was amended in late 1991 with Resolución 2578, which stated the following (emphasis added):

[sup]Modificar el Punto III del Anexo I de la Resolución D.N.M. Nº 2650 del 6 de diciembre de 1984, el que quedará redactado de la siguiente manera: "III - ARGENTINOS NATIVOS, NATURALIZADOS EN OTROS PAISES NO ENUMERADOS EN EL PUNTO II Y ARGENTINOS NATURALIZADOS, QUE HUBIERAN A SU VEZ OBTENIDO NUEVA NACIONALIDAD EN CUALQUIER PAIS DEL MUNDO, INCLUSO EN ALGUNO DE LOS MENCIONADOS EN EL PUNTO II:[/sup]​

[sup]Tanto al momento del ingreso, cuanto al egreso o al intentar realizar trámites migratorios, serán considerados a todos los efectos como ARGENTINOS, ya que según la actual LEY DE NACIONALIDAD (346) la nacionalidad argentina no se pierde. Lo único que se pierde es el ejercicio de los derechos políticos.[/sup]​

[sup]Al momento del ingreso a la República y en el caso de presentar solamente pasaporte de la nacionalidad adquirida (en el caso de los países limítrofes, documento supletorio: C.I. o L.E. o L.C. o D.N.I.) se les podrá intervenir aquél o expedirle la tarjeta pertinente, según corresponda, estampándose el sello 'PERMANENTE' con la leyenda 'ARGENTINO' manuscrita bajo el sello. Para salir del país deberán hacerlo con la documentación argentina pertinente, salvo que la permanencia en la República no hubiera excedido de SESENTA (60) días corridos, circunstancia ésta que les permitirá egresar con el documento de identidad de su nacionalidad adquirida, que hubieren utilizado para ingresar al país".[/sup]​

You will note that the text of the bottom paragraph is functionally identical to the text in force today, which I quoted in the previous post. The main difference is that it granted only a 60-day grace period for Argentines to enter-exit the country on a foreign passport, rather than the 180 days established by Disposición 2742/2009 referenced below.

So the guidance bajo is peddling was obsolete since early 1992. I understand bajo_cero was out of the country, or simply busy with tango, or acuatic plant life or whatnot, during the past 25 years or so, so this may be news to him.

But the entire Resolución 2650, including the 1991 amendment, was deprecated/abolished in 2009, with the adoption of Disposición 2742/2009. This is the one in force today. It expressly abolished the above resolutions in their entirety and established, among other things, that Argentines can depart the country on the same foreign passport on which they entered, as long as said entry was within the preceding 180 days. Q.E.D.

========

To quote something I read recently by bajo_cero: I don´t understand how you are not ashamed of your ignorance and arrogance.
The difference, of course, is that in your case this ignorance concerns stuff you're supposed to know everything about: this is your day job.

It boggles the mind.

Stuff which is literally your day job, and falls pretty squarely within your direct area of [in]competence, you, an attorney, turn out literally not to know shit about.
And it was all put together - chapter and verse - by a foreigner, whose native tongue isn't even Spanish, in the space of an hour.

For an attorney, of all things, (a "registered professional" to use your term), to blunder so badly his own area of expertise? Kinda unforgivable.

But the douchebaggery in responding to people who dare challenge you? Actually, fits in pretty well with that level of stupefying ignorance. Never mind.

 

[gracielle]

Ben - per excerpt from your post on 2 March 2017 at 11:46 pm.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]You will note that the text of the bottom paragraph is functionally identical to the text in force today, which I quoted in the previous post. The main difference is that it granted only a 60-day grace period for Argentines to enter-exit the country on a foreign passport, rather than the 180 days established by Disposición 2742/2009 referenced below.[/background]

I can attest to the veracity of the statement. Between 1989 and 2001, I entered and exited ARG with my US passport. During those years my stays rarely exceeded the 60-day grace period. But when it happened, I visited Montevideo and obtained an additional 60-day period. I was born here but chose not to apply for the ARG passport until 2002.

 

[ben]

Well, it's a well over 48 hours since bajo_cero was proven to be a complete jackass, rather conclusively if I may say so myself.

Bajo_cero visited this site at least twice on Friday, at about 9:30 AM and at about 12:45 PM. Predictably, he has had nothing to say.

If you were expecting him, having been shown to be completely wrong about stuff literally in his backyard (and rather rude as well), to break character and put forward something graceful - maybe apologize at least for the ad hominems? - you'd be wrong.

Say, for stuff like this:

• ‘do not confuse people because they can spend some time in jail for your "advice"’.
• ‘To identify your self improperly (with a foreign passport being local) is a crime’.
• ‘you do not understand at all how the legal system works.’
• ‘you are wrong but you do not [want to] understand it.’
• ‘You do not want to learn, you think you know, be happy with that.’
• ‘I don´t understand how you are not ashamed of your ignorance and arrogance.’
• ‘you are clueless about the law of this country‘
• ‘your mistakes are so clumsy and your behavior so arrogant that the final answer is: it is like this because I say so because I m a registered profesional and this is all what you need to know‘
• ‘there are as many opinions as professionals, but you are not one of them and this is why I cannot have a legal debate about this neither I m not interested about teaching.’

All of this, rather than take 15 minutes and look up basics. About entry/exit requirements. For his own country. An immigration lawyer.

I mean this is really something for the ages. The only parallel I could come up with is, maybe... oh I give up, I looked for something funny but couldn't find a bigger joke than an immigration attorney not knowing the entry/exit requirements for his own country, for its own citizens?!

Really, the only thing that could top the astonishing ignorance on display is the jacktastic aggressiveness and arrogance in defending that same ignorance.

But I guess it is an insight into the way of thinking of a certain breed of Argentine. Not all mind you, but plenty of Argentines exhibit a bajo-style mindset, where their professional credentials allow them to replace any kind of intelligent discussion with pretentiousness at best to condescending dismissal. Not only in their own field, but in others as well. (Witness how many times has bajo referred to the difference between civil law and common law as a fig leaf, even when said difference was a total red herring). Whereas the truth is that they may well be stupendously ignorant in their own field as well. Example: the last 2 pages of this thread.

It results in otherwise intelligent people's smarts being useless, because someone who isn't up to admitting a mistake is generally an idiot not worth talking to, let alone doing business with. Really just sad.

 

[Ceviche]

Nothing to take away from you, Ben. It is not easy to find such information online especially with Spanish not yr native tongue.

Its possible he may be studying the law books or looking at the latest precedents. As often the information on internet can be outdated.

Many times the court declares a sentence for a particular case which acts as a precedent to all future cases.So a lawyer may use a particular precedent in front of judge and despite what may be written in law books..the judge has to consider the precedent and declare his sentence for this particular case on present day basis the precedent.

I grew up amongst lawyers and lawbooks surrounding me everywhere..so I know this much though I am not a "certified" lawyer myself. Though law of every country differs - but the value of precedents can not be ignored anywhere.

For the common man :-

http://www.dictionar...rowse/precedent

 

[ben]

Nothing to take away from you, Ben. It is not easy to find such information online especially with Spanish not yr native tongue.

Its possible he may be studying the law books or looking at the latest precedents. As often the information on internet can be outdated.

Many times the court declares a sentence for a particular case which acts as a precedent to all future cases.So a lawyer may use a particular precedent in front of judge and despite what may be written in law books..the judge has to consider the precedent and declare his sentence for this particular case on present day basis the precedent.

I grew up amongst lawyers and lawbooks surrounding me everywhere..so I know this much though I am not a "certified" lawyer myself. Though law of every country differs - but the value of precedents can not be ignored anywhere.

For the common man :-

http://www.dictionar...rowse/precedent

Ceviche, a few points:

1. I appreciate your point on precedents and practice etc in theory, but in fact there is nothing of the sort. The info I pulled regarding 180 days is from the DNM website giving current practice, which is pulled directly from Disposición 2742/2009. This guidance has not changed since 2009, when the 60-day period was extended to 180 days. If there was a change to this, you can imagine that it would be a news item; there are none of the sort.

And the main point is that everybody knows that in practice, Argentines routinely come and go on foreign passports, with never so much as a comment. This would be either 1) because: DNM agents ignore the relevant law without exception; or 2) because the law permits this. Which of the 2 would you put your money on?

Finally, if bajo_cero had access to some hot-off-the-press info, he'd have said so; he said nothing of the sort, in fact he's implied the exact opposite. He made plain that any suggestion that this could be done meant being 'clueless about the law of this country'. See list of insults above. And he implied that to understand what he was saying, all that was necessary was reading the Constitution (namely, article 14: see below).

With all my respect to your desire to make him appear to be less of an jackass, he simply is one. And as concerns the facts, he is simply peddling guidance that was obsoleted in December 1991. Twenty five years ago.

2. As to myself: 1) I appreciate your compliment but the fact is that while my Spanish is not native, it is good enough to work in a customer-facing business, in Spanish. Regarding my legal knowledge - I am not an attorney but I also grew up among lawyers and lawbooks; in fact for many years I spent multiple hours per day studying a legal system, albeit one that differs both from the civil and common law systems. A close relative of mine is an immigration attorney in the US, and a good one at that. I would say that my understanding of the law in general and of immigration law in particular - is at the very least that of an educated layman. The difference is that I don't stick my education in your face, because it isn't irrelevant; facts and law matter. Bajo feels free to replace both with insults.

Finally, while again I appreciate your compliment, getting the info together is not difficult at all. Argentina has an excellent online catalog of its legislative activity: if you know the source of a given law, it is very easy to look up the original. Usually putting the relevant resolution number into Google is enough. Basic legwork is all you need. Which makes bajo's ignorance thereof all the more criminal. This is felony ignorance.

3. As an aside, if you grew up with lawbooks, I'm sure you know that precedent is much more of a thing when it comes to common law systems - where precedent is almost always binding - than civil law. In civil law precedent - even from higher courts - is persuasive but not binding; law can only be made by the legislature. What governs here is the law and the codified administrative decisions of the DNM (unless the latter can be shown to be in conflict with the former, which bajo appears to have done successfully as regards citizenship).

And by the way - who would have been the one to go to court to overturn DNM's lenient policy regarding foreign-passport-holding Argentines? The government need not take it to court - they could simply reverse the DNM policy with a new resolución or disposición. They have not done so.

4. There are many more points in bajo's pile of dung that I could have fun with, though by now this is beating a dead horse.

• The suggestion to read article 14 of the CN. Another quote, another red herring. The sentence “Read art. 14 of the CN” sounds impressive... until you go and do that. When you do, you find the following text, bearing no relevance to the issue in question:
  • [sub]Artículo 14.- Todos los habitantes de la Nación gozan de los siguientes derechos conforme a las leyes que reglamenten su ejercicio; a saber: de trabajar y ejercer toda industria lícita; de navegar y comerciar; de peticionar a las autoridades; de entrar, permanecer, transitar y salir del territorio argentino; de publicar sus ideas por la prensa sin censura previa; de usar y disponer de su propiedad; de asociarse con fines útiles; de profesar libremente su culto; de enseñar y aprender.[/sub]
    Translation:
    [sub]Article 14. - All inhabitants of the Nation [shall] enjoy the following rights subject to the laws that regulate the exercise thereof, namely: to work and practice all licit industry; to move and trade; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain in, transit and depart the Argentine territory; to publish [their] ideas in the press without prior censorship; to use and dispose of [their] property; to associate toward useful ends; to exercise freely [their] religion; to teach and learn.[/sub]
  • What on earth does that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing: a cynical attempt to throw you with references.
• The ludicrous suggestion that when DNM says openly that the reciprocity fee doesn't apply to Argentines bearing foreign passports, it actually means that they then won't be able to leave without new papers.
• The suggestion that people could, as a matter of course, declare themselves to be Argentine on entry and then fool DNM upon exiting the country. Whenever a holder of a foreign passport exits the country passes through immigration upon departure, DNM always checks for an entry stamp, and always has. Until 1991, when the policy as stated by bajo_cero actually applied, upon entry to the country your entry stamp passport included the word "ARGENTINO" and you could kiss goodbye the option of leaving with that passport. So to be able to fool the authorities when leaving, you ALSO had to fool them when entering - namely, to hide that you were Argentine.

It's better to just leave it alone because truly, this man is amazing.

 

[ben]

Nothing to take away from you, Ben. It is not easy to find such information online especially with Spanish not yr native tongue.

Its possible he may be studying the law books or looking at the latest precedents. As often the information on internet can be outdated.

Many times the court declares a sentence for a particular case which acts as a precedent to all future cases.So a lawyer may use a particular precedent in front of judge and despite what may be written in law books..the judge has to consider the precedent and declare his sentence for this particular case on present day basis the precedent.

I grew up amongst lawyers and lawbooks surrounding me everywhere..so I know this much though I am not a "certified" lawyer myself. Though law of every country differs - but the value of precedents can not be ignored anywhere.

For the common man :-

http://www.dictionar...rowse/precedent

Ceviche, a few points:

1. I appreciate your point on precedents and practice etc in theory, but in fact there is nothing of the sort. The info I pulled regarding 180 days is from the DNM website giving current practice, which is pulled directly from Disposición 2742/2009. This guidance has not changed since 2009, when the 60-day period was extended to 180 days. If there was a change to this, you can imagine that it would be a news item; there are none of the sort.

And the main point is that everybody knows that in practice, Argentines routinely come and go on foreign passports, with never so much as a comment. This would be either 1) because: DNM agents ignore the relevant law without exception; or 2) because the law permits this. Which of the 2 would you put your money on?

Finally, if bajo_cero had access to some hot-off-the-press info, he'd have said so; he said nothing of the sort, in fact he's implied the exact opposite. He made plain that any suggestion that this could be done meant being 'clueless about the law of this country'. See list of insults above. And he implied that to understand what he was saying, all that was necessary was reading the Constitution (namely, article 14: see below).

With all my respect to your desire to make him appear to be less of an jackass, he simply is one. And as concerns the facts, he is simply peddling guidance that was obsoleted in December 1991. Twenty five years ago.

2. As to myself: I appreciate your compliment but the fact is that while my Spanish is not native, it is good enough to work in a customer-facing business, in Spanish. Regarding my legal knowledge - I am not an attorney but I also grew up among lawyers and lawbooks, and for many years I spent many hours every day studying a legal system, albeit one that differs both from the civil and common law systems. A close relative of mine is an immigration attorney in the US, and a good one at that. I would say that my understanding of the law in general and of immigration law in particular - is at the very least that of an educated layman. The difference is that I don't stick my education in your face, because it isn't relevant; facts and law matter. Bajo feels free to replace both with insults, because innuendo is all he has going for him.

Finally, while again I appreciate your compliment, getting the info together is not difficult at all. While bajo and other unscrupulous lawyers enjoy painting the law as a kind of alchemy, this really isn't rocket science. Argentina has an excellent online catalog of its legislative activity: if you know the source of a given law, it is very easy to look up the original. Usually putting the relevant resolution number into Google is enough. Basic legwork is all you need. Which makes bajo's ignorance thereof - if he truly is ignorant of the actual regulation - all the more criminal. This is felony ignorance - or worse.

3. As an aside, if you grew up with lawbooks, I'm sure you know that precedent is much more of a thing when it comes to common law systems - where precedent is almost always binding - than civil law. In civil law precedent - even from higher courts - is persuasive but not binding; law can only be made by the legislature. Wikipedia has - as it often does - an excellent article regarding this.

What governs here is the law and the codified administrative decisions of the DNM (unless the latter can be shown in court to be in conflict with the former, which bajo appears to have done successfully as regards citizenship).

And by the way - who would have been the one to go to court to overturn DNM's lenient policy regarding foreign-passport-holding Argentines? The government need not take it to court - they could simply reverse the DNM policy with a new resolución or disposición. They have not done so.

4. There are many more points in bajo's pile of dung that I could have fun with, though by now this is beating a dead horse.

• The suggestion to read article 14 of the CN. Another quote, another red herring. The sentence “Read art. 14 of the CN” sounds impressive... until you go and do that. When you do, you find the following text, bearing no relevance to the issue in question:
  • [sub]Artículo 14.- Todos los habitantes de la Nación gozan de los siguientes derechos conforme a las leyes que reglamenten su ejercicio; a saber: de trabajar y ejercer toda industria lícita; de navegar y comerciar; de peticionar a las autoridades; de entrar, permanecer, transitar y salir del territorio argentino; de publicar sus ideas por la prensa sin censura previa; de usar y disponer de su propiedad; de asociarse con fines útiles; de profesar libremente su culto; de enseñar y aprender.[/sub]
    Translation:
    [sub]Article 14. - All inhabitants of the Nation [shall] enjoy the following rights subject to the laws that regulate the exercise thereof, namely: to work and practice all licit industry; to move and trade; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain in, transit and depart the Argentine territory; to publish [their] ideas in the press without prior censorship; to use and dispose of [their] property; to associate toward useful ends; to exercise freely [their] religion; to teach and learn.[/sub]
  • What on earth does that have to do with the issue at hand, namely whether Argentina chooses to allow its citizens to enter on a foreign passport?
    Nothing: a cynical attempt to throw you off with references.
• The ludicrous suggestion that when DNM says openly that the reciprocity fee doesn't apply to Argentines bearing foreign passports, it actually means that they then won't be able to leave without new papers.
• The suggestion that there are multiple jurisdictions as regards immigration law - pray tell, what are they? Other than the regulatory agency (DNM in this case) and the courts, same as anywhere else.
• The suggestion that Argentines entering on a foreign passport could somehow end up in jail for doing that. Since 1984 at least, this is ridiculous; DNM Resoluciones 2650 and stated plainly what happened if a foreigner
• The suggestion that people could, normally, declare themselves to be Argentine on entry and then fool DNM upon exiting the country. Whenever a holder of a foreign passport exits the country passes through immigration upon departure, DNM always checks for an entry stamp, and always has. Before 1992, when the policy as stated by bajo_cero actually applied, upon entry to the country your entry stamp passport included the word "ARGENTINO" and you could kiss goodbye the option of leaving with that passport. So to be able to fool the authorities when leaving, you ALSO had to fool them when entering - namely, to hide that you were Argentine.
• And most of all, the brazen attempt to conflate some case of his that in all likelihood refers to a local resident pretending not to have a DNI (aka misrepresenting residency, probably for customs purposes) and in any event does not concern an Argentine entering on a foreign passport, with the case at hand. And when called out on it, running from the issue pleading professional secrecy.

It's better to just leave it alone because truly, this man is amazing.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, As I stated before, I'm not going to disclose my professional secret.

If you think you are right and you are happy with that, enjoy it.

However, just to make you think a little bit I ask you a) how many days do you have to appeal a deportation order? How is it notified?

A) after using google or the website of DNM your answer is going to be 1) 3 days and 2) you do not have to be notified, it is somehow automatic.

My professional answer is 1) there is no deadline and 2) if you do not sign you are not notified. Why? Sorry, it is professional secret. I developed both leading precedents.

Another question for the genious of law: do you need legal residency right now for applying for citizenship? Then you use your secret tool (google) and find the DNU 70/2017 and you read the last article that establishes that you actually need it. Ups, eureka you think, I won again, I'm so smart.

But my professional reply is, no, you do not need legal reaidency for applying and getting citizenship. I have about 250 cases on without it but I'm sorry again, I cannot disclose how I acchieve it.

Among your asserts you said something like the legal system is very easy to read, follow or something like that, that it was very well organized and you showed again that you didn't understand when I disclosed the Key info here: we have a system alike the Spaniard that is whatever but not organized and easy to understand: I have to travel to Madrid and to spend a week at the Royal bar association's library to understand how the system really works and how to win while you think you understand after a google search, right! ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

In fact, you quote the DNM website when I have a high end authorithy of that institution under criminal investigation because he was deporting people using an abolished law. What a reliable source of info...

So, I imagine you didn't read the immigration laws of the Crown of Spain before the Revolution, the law 816, 4144, The Constitution of 1949, the decree 46/70, illia's immigration decree, law 22.439, all the project of law and SC precedents about them and all the books and papers wrotten about them, don't you? I did. And this is why I saw something in advance I do not want to disclose no matter what.

The same happend with DNU 70/2017, I knew 1 year in advance what was comming so, while everybody is thinking WTF to do today, I have 2 appeals before the Supreme Court granted by the Federal Chamber of Appeals under study of the Supreme Court where I discuse the legal residency that the DNU 70/2017 requires. So, I'm no less that 1 year in advance while a General of keyboard like you...no comments.

I suggest you 2 things. If you are so brave to insult me, come to my office and do it personally. Otherwise, Shut up because sooner or later you might be arrested and you are going to want the worst possible "jack ass" as you said (hard ass your mean) Lawyer you can find. Nobody wants a sheep as a lawyer when you are in jail.

My Chinese clients call me shark because they know I do not try to make friends at Court and I have no problem to fight with whoever. This is why in the last 7 years I saw many judges to retire in a hurry, many employed of Court loosing their jobs, I saw a Federal Judge who asked me for brives and fabricated 17 fake criminal cases against me for extorting me giving explanations before the dismissal Jury not once, twice.

So, you are happy, enjoy it, ignorance is a bliss.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

In fact, as far as I remember, the first judge who had the dignity to give up was Ceviche's.

Her wife works at the chamber of appeals so she cheated the draw of judges and my first 4 cases were assigned to her husband.

His decisions on the 4 cases was so ridicoulous that I asked to see the judge.

His Secretary said, sure you can meet him the day after the dead line for the appeals is over. I replied, please tell the judge I m going to meet him the day after I win the 4 appeals.

So, after I won 3 of the 4 appeals I asked to meet the judge. He received me at his office. It was everything so bizarre there. He had 3 undividual sofa and a table in between. The one for him was higher while the one the other 2 were lowers so, even you were sit, you were like 30 cms under him like in a royal Court.

So, i sat at the higher one, I said that I came to enforce the decisions of the Federal Chamber of Appeals and I start giving directions about how to do it.

The judge never looked at my eyes.

The same day he signed the decision according to my "suggestions" and resigned.

He was so racist that he couldn't accept to recognize rights to a foreigner.

So, this is why Ceviche is an Argentine citizen.

 

[ben]

I never called you a jackass for your work regarding citizenship. In fact, I said not long ago that you appear to be a pro at that.

I did call you a jackass - and stand by that - for suggesting all sorts of silliness regarding Argentine nationals entering on a foreign passport.

You were wrong on that, plain-out wrong.

And when called out on that, instead of backing off, you doubled down on made-up BS. Including with a lot of ad hominems. See list above. And with a lot of misdirection and red herrings too. To wit: Article 14 of the CN (huh?), absolutely unrelated case of a resident misrepresenting his residency. Etc.

And you are now changing the subject - again - with a lot of stuff you claim to have done well. Nobody disputes that.

And certainly there are many areas where the law is complex. Nobody disputes that, either.

And of course there are cases where the law is so intricate that you need a competent lawyer, particularly when litigating against a government agency's interpretation of the law. You make it sound like I suggest that the law is not an intricate field. No need for straw men - I suggest no such thing.

It's just that the object of discussion in this case, was very simple. Argentine nationals not resident in Argentina can enter on a foreign passport, and they can leave on that foreign passport provided they do so within 180 days. Nobody disputes that either, except you, and you're dead wrong on that. At least since December 2009 - and for 60 days, since December 1991. You have a precedent that contradicts that - and only that? Great. Otherwise, STFU.

You want to move on to other great stuff you do. Great, the easiest way to do that is to admit when you are wrong. Bonus points for doing it gracefully.

But instead of admitting you're wrong, you're still grasping at straws. I'll deal with those now.

In fact, you quote the DNM website when I have a high end authorithy
I didn't just quote the DNM website - I also quoted the Resolución 2578, and subsequent Disposición 2742/2009 from the InfoLEG (Argentine legislative) website. Which the DNM website quotes pretty much verbatim.
(You have a curious habit of ignoring the parts you don't like - even when those are kind of the point... - and just attacking the parts you can).
I also addressed that DNM can be wrong with the following sentence, which you also ignored (emphasis added):

[sub]What governs here is the law and the codified administrative decisions of the DNM (unless the latter can be shown to be in conflict with the former, which bajo appears to have done successfully as regards citizenship).[/sub]​

Another question for the genious of law
No, I never claimed to be that. You did - which makes your doubling down on this, while being dead wrong, so jacktastic.
Actually, you will note that I had crossed out "genius lawyer" and used your term, "registered professional". (Which I will suggest Google Translate use as the English translation of "abogada exitosa").

This is the whole problem. When you double down on something so obviously wrong, it calls into question all the times you may have been right and done great things. Don't like that? Learn to back down gracefully, especially when you're dead wrong on something. Especially when it's something small. Choose your battles.

I draw no joy from insulting you, it's that you're just so over the top.
You want me to repeat the above to your face? Great - let's meet at a Starbucks and I'll be happy to do that over coffee.

 

[Ceviche]

Why dont the two of you just meet up somewhere for a coffee and sort it out amongst yourselves.