New Immigration Decree, Long Life To King Macri!

[ben]

There is no discussion, I just inform you.

It makes no sense to provide you anything because you cannot understand it and you are not judging it, judges do.

Subject finished.

It would make plenty of sense, because it would establish clearly that you're bringing an irrelevant example.

The word passport barely appears in the aforementioned law and only in regards to the issuance thereof.
Whereas the illegality of not presenting a DNI is both

1. clearly addressed in the law;
2. is not simply a clerical issue but rather constitutes an attempt to mislead the authorities (probably for tax/customs purposes).

If you chose not to discuss you wouldn't have brought the example in the first place. You've already stated your opinion.

To bring it but provide no details is reminiscent of the old photoshop job of the NYT you linked to, courtesy of Diario Registrado.
Among other examples.

 

[camel]

 

[Mitch]

Bajo, are you saying as a layman Ben cannot understand the law because he is not a lawyer?

If that is the precident, can I can bitch-slap anyone that rubs me the wrong way and explain away my actions by saying, "I'm not a lawyer and didn't understand that it was illegal?"

Are you an MMA fighter or are you equating yourself to one in the legal field?

 

[ben]

I was going to leave this alone, but Mitch actually raises an interesting point.

Let us suppose for a minute that bajo_cero is right. Looks pretty clear that he is wrong, but let's say for argument's sake that he is entirely correct in his reading of the RENAPER law.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is no excuse. But how far does that go? Is a normal citizen expected to ignore the guidance given by the border control authority and all consulates abroad?

It is one thing when a defendant mounts a successful defense by overturning the law or regulation he is accused of contravening. But does it work the other way?

To me it's pretty clear that even were bajo correct in his reading of the RENAPER law - which he is likely not - anyone who jails someone who has followed the guidance of the relevant authority - and at the borders, the relevant authority is indisputably the Dirección Nacional de Migraciones - needs to be disciplined. And if it is an agent of DNM who has ignored his own agency's reglamentación, doubly so.

But again this is all moot because the RENAPER law barely mentions the word passport. It does deal with someone who does not present a DNI - the case bajo is trying to extrapolate from.

 

[Ceviche]

What I gather from Bajo's argument -

He is trying to say that DNM agents ( cos of the new decree in hand) have become a bunch of racist bullies and are upset that judges are giving citizenship easily, especially to non-caucasian race. And that they want these non-caucasians to make some errors while entering the country or departing the country, which can be held against them and so they can be put in jail with mules and not allowed to defend themselves and be stripped of citizenship and deported?

And that the DNM agents have deciphered the new law in their mind as per what they really want to do, rather than follow the verbatim.

Is that what you are trying to say, Bajo?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

More or less yes but I would erase non-causasians. They hate foreigners.

You can entry with a foreign passport but a) you can be prosecuted for that and B ) it can be used to cancel your citizenship. All the precedents of SC are against you.

The DNU was changed while all the Chinese travel for new year to China and it says now that you cannot re entry with a precaria, so, there are hundred of people who cannot can back even they left the country with a permission to re enter from the DNM.

So, if you choose to trust the DNM, well, good luck!

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I was going to leave this alone, but Mitch actually raises an interesting point.

Let us suppose for a minute that bajo_cero is right. Looks pretty clear that he is wrong, but let's say for argument's sake that he is entirely correct in his reading of the RENAPER law.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law is no excuse. But how far does that go? Is a normal citizen expected to ignore the guidance given by the border control authority and all consulates abroad?

It is one thing when a defendant mounts a successful defense by overturning the law or regulation he is accused of contravening. But does it work the other way?

To me it's pretty clear that even were bajo correct in his reading of the RENAPER law - which he is likely not - anyone who jails someone who has followed the guidance of the relevant authority - and at the borders, the relevant authority is indisputably the Dirección Nacional de Migraciones - needs to be disciplined. And if it is an agent of DNM who has ignored his own agency's reglamentación, doubly so.

But again this is all moot because the RENAPER law barely mentions the word passport. It does deal with someone who does not present a DNI - the case bajo is trying to extrapolate from.

You are not getting the point.

You asume you have rights, it used to be like that, not anymore.

The DNU allows to arrest you without a deportation order. So, they said you break the law, whatever, like the abuse of the tourist visa and you are in jail.

You do not have the right to see a judge and even if your lawyer appeal, after 60 days they deport you no matter what.

The contenciosoadministrativo judge is going to convalidate your arrest using a precedent of contracts with the State, it means, right now you are like a cow because the freedom of a human being cannot be decide on a contract basis because this is what slavery looks like.

So, you are thinking about a criminal judge but you are never going to see one, the immigration agents assert that you commited a crime or a simple administrative infraction and you are in jail.

And you continue asserting that I missread the RENAPER law, i just let you know how the judges read it. And I just do impolite comments about how judges interprets law (at appeals), beside others, that they should be dismissed and criminally prosecuted...

So, your advice can send people to jail plus they citizenship can be cancel so, again, let it to professionals and be more humble.

FYI the RENAPER law stablishes that the only valid id for a citizen is the DNI and the passport is the consequense of the DNI...but you didn't see it, right?

Even if we imagine DNU 70/2017 does not exist, while your lawyer tries to defend you, you are going to spend between 1 up to 3 months in jail and, of course, he is not going to use your arguments because that kind of analisys is done at the trial 2 years later so...hellooooooooooooooo

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Duplicated post.

 

[Ceviche]

in jail and, of course, he is not going to use your arguments because that kind of analisys is done at the trial 2 years later so...hellooooooooooooooo

Famous "hello" of BC is back! ha ha

 

[ben]

So we've moved on to the practical. An encouraging development.

So 1 simple question:

Have you, bajo_cero, or anyone else here, ever heard of a specific case of an Argentine, resident abroad, arriving here on a foreign passport and being treated any differently than what the DNM says?

To wit - a stamp that says ARGENTINO - 180 DÍAS, and no problems leaving on the same foreign passport within those 180 days.

If you have a specific case of that, great - we'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, this is all spreading FUD.