New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[ben]

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

I had already suggested that, in the last line of my last post to boot.
But the issue side of this can be safely done in public. No one needs to read further on a subject they find boring.
And your opinion doesn't count - you'd already taken a side

 

[Bajo_cero2]

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.

This is your opinion, be happy with that.

As I asserted many times before, I´m not going to disclose my profesional secret regarding this topic.

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.

Well, that you do not understand does not mean that it is not relevant.
I do not teach and I do not disclose profesional secret.

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

I change to a subject where there is not profesional secret involved to show you how naive is your reasoning.

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

Immigration is the most complex one.

It's just that the object of discussion in this case, was very simple.

It is not but I´m not going to disclose why. However, I suggest not to do it.

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.

I do not like immigration law, but you made me see a mine gold so, I m not going to disclose my profesional secret.

(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).

Ben, the internal memos of the DNM are not laws…they are only directions to its employed that can have legal consequenses for you based on the LAW...

So, this is like: “if the foreigners tries to enter with cocaine and you realize it, let him pass until customs where there are enough police men”.

They allow you to make mistakes. Right! We are all adults and they work is to double check if you lie or try to cheat the system.

I also addressed that DNM can be wrong with the following sentence, which you also ignored (emphasis added):

I read you superficially because I m not debating with you, we are not equalls and your attitude is ok for a 12 years old teen.

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.

Thank you for the advice. Mine is choose your opponent properly. Do not go to fight with an MMA pro fighter…

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.

Bla,bla,bla, you are afraid now? Do not worry, I was blaffing because I know people like you are only brave behind the keyboard. However, do not worry, I´m almost handicapped and I barely left the wheelchair.

However, I m not interested in wasting my time.

 

[ben]

I did neglect to mention the preamble to the aforelinked Resolución from 1991. It makes plain the purpose of changing the rules:

[sub][sup]CONSIDERANDO:[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que por la Resolución mencionada en el Visto de la presente se aprueba el Cuerpo de Instrucciones para el tratamiento migratorio de los argentinos que se hubieran naturalizado en otro país.[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que dichas instrucciones diferencian en cuanto al ingreso y egreso de argentinos, en virtud de la existencia de Convenios de Doble Nacionalidad con nuestro país.[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que el Punto III ítem 1) del Anexo aprobado por Resolución Nº 2560/84 establece que los argentinos naturalizados en países con los cuales no exista Convenio de Doble Nacionalidad, podrán ingresar a la República Argentina con pasaporte de la nacionalidad adquirida, debiendo indefectiblemente egresar de la misma, con pasaporte argentino.[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que dicha obligación, acarrea al argentino naturalizado en otro país que ingresa a la República Argentina por un breve lapso, innuberables trastornos al verse imposibilitado de egresar de la misma, por no ser poseedor de documento argentino al efecto.[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que no menos inconvenientes debe soportar esta Dirección Nacional, por los reclamos efectuados ante medios periodísticos y Consulados Argentinos en el exterior, por los argentinos comprendidos en la situación planteada.[/sup][/sub]​

[sub][sup]Que la problemática suscitada, amerita establecer una excepción documentaria a la regla general sentada por el Punto III, ítem 1) del Anexo aprobado por Resolución D.N.M. Nº 2650/84, que posibilite a los argentinos naturalizados en otro país, con el cual no exista Convenio de Doble Nacionalidad y que permanezcan en la República Argentina por un plazo no mayor de SESENTA DIAS (60) corridos, el egresar con pasaporte de su nacionalidad adquirida.[/sup][/sub]​

Translation:

CONSIDERING:​

[...]​

• That Point III item 1) of the Annex approved by Resolución 2560/84 establishes that Argentines naturalized in countries with which there does not exist a Convention on Dual Nationality, may enter the Argentine Republic with the passport of their acquired nationality, but must depart the same, without fail, on an Argentine passport;
• That this obligation results in an Argentine, naturalized in another country, who wishes to briefly enter the Argentine Republic, innumerable disruptions owing to the impossibility of departing the same (=Argentina), on account of not possessing the relevant Argentine document;
• That no fewer inconveniences are borne by the DNM, on account of the claims made before the media and Argentine Consulates abroad, by Argentines who find themselves in the situation heretofore described;
• That the problem that has been raised, merits the establishment of a documentary exception to the general rule established by Point III item 1) of the Annex approved by D.N.M. Resolución 2560/84, that would make possible for the Argentines naturalized in another country, with which there does not exist a Convention on Dual Nationality and who remain in the Argentine Republic for a term not exceeding 60 days, to return with the passport of their acquired nationality [...]

Cogent and succinct.

And makes even more absurd the suggestion that simply because this is administrative and does not have the force of legislation, that therefore this will somehow not be what happens. But bajo seems to have info about this that he won't share with anyone!

 

[ben]

Bajo, you're a piece of work.

So to recap:
DNM says Argentines can enter/exit on a foreign passport up to 180 days.
This is the administrative policy they have in place since 1991. [sup][sub](OK, since 2009: from 1991 to 2009 was only 60 days not 180).[/sub][/sup]
This is the personal experience of everyone, ever.

Bajo_cero, an abogada exitosa registered professional, says that really this is all not true, and you should be very, very afraid.
He knows why, but he won't tell you. Professional secret!*
In fact, he says, it's like coming through the airport with cocaine. Which is progress: before, he was comparing it with murder.
* [sup][sub]BTW - first it was suggestions to Google the relevant law and read the Constitution. Only once he was called on his bluff did it become “professional secret” .[/sub][/sup]

And seems to think that offering to meet at a Starbucks is a sign of being afraid.
I therefore rescind said invitation. Jackass.

Feel free to have the last word on this, because I doubt I'll be on this subject any longer.

 

[Gringoboy]

As I asserted many times before, I´m not going to disclose my profesional secret regarding this topic.

I do not teach and I do not disclose profesional secret.

I change to a subject where there is not profesional secret involved to show you how naive is your reasoning.

It is not but I´m not going to disclose why. However, I suggest not to do it.

I do not like immigration law, but you made me see a mine gold so, I m not going to disclose my profesional secret.

However, do not worry, I´m almost handicapped and I barely left the wheelchair.

Bajo, this is where your argument falls flat on its face; your so called professional secret (that you've mentioned five times in this post) you use like an ace card up your sleeve that you're not prepared to deal.
Total cop out.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, I have to use examples you can understand, I cannot be subtle. However, you didn't get the concept. I give up.

Gringoboy, if you think so, it is Ok. I do not mind, I do not need your approval neither.

Regards

 

[Mitch]

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.

I'll buy the coffee and even frapachinos if you tell me when this going to happen and let me moderate! Debating on the net is one thing, but live exchanges brings in all kinds of new dimensions.

 

[wineguy999]

I'll buy the coffee and even frapachinos if you tell me when this going to happen and let me moderate! Debating on the net is one thing, but live exchanges brings in all kinds of new dimensions.

True, no? People who are as arrogant as the Doktor are usually cut down to size.

 

[julian63]

I have no dog in this fight, but it appears to me that anyone engaged in an argument who relies on "a professional secret" to be the entire basis of his correctness is suspect. What is a professional (legal) secret? Is it an obscure written law, a seldom read controlling precedent, a way to lose/win a case ignoring the merits ( as in cheating)? As a US lawyer, the only info I could not share is confidential communications between lawyer and his/her client. There was no such thing as a professional secret so I'm at a loss to comprehend Bajo's argument.
Though I have not bothered to cross check the substantive arguments (to the extent a 'professional secret' constitutes a substantive argument), I am not surprised that a lawyer who boasts that he is rude and nasty in his professional affairs (as Bajo has done) would be engaged in this kind of unprofessional public bickering. Calling him on that ridiculous boast got me on his "ignore" list along with all the others so don't expect him to reply to this.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Julian, you can be "under" professional secret and it means that you cannot share what you know about your client.

But "your" professional secret is also your knowledge you do not want to share.

You cannot just to pick up a book and cntl copy in citizenship or immigration. You have to develop your own legal arguments and this is your asset.

During the last 7 years I have developed over 90 leading cases and my asset ussually is the new appeal I won 2 days ago, that I quote today and nobody else have.

Right now is a very complex timming because there was a huge change in the immigration procedure of deportation and regarding the requirements for citizenship.

Any information about how to deal with them is right now an asset that I m not going to disclose.

As I stated before, I m not interested about debating with Ben neither to teach him.

I m not interested to win the debate with Ben.

What there is no chance that I do is to disclose info I do not want to disclose.

For making him understand Why he is wrong I have to provide too much information that is part of my professional secret (knowledge) that I m never going to share.

That's it, simple.

I share what I want only if I want.