Overstayed Visa--How Many Times Is This Acceptable?

[ben]

I passed the three strikes 'rule' with no consequences. I know people who have been doing this for years and years.

 

[demokritos]

Though this has been discussed in several threads, I don't remember a single example of anyone actually being denied reentry after the third overstay (which is different from someone being told they would be denied reentry after the third overstay).

And I think the source of the "three strikes and your our rule" are posts in this forum and not what any immigration officer actually said.

I know that Dr. Rubilar has denied it's existence, and he's also made it clear that "visa runs" (and rums) are useless.

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Customs officer told me that if you pay the overstay fine 3 times then your not allowed back into Argentina.[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I've got three overstay fines on my passport, the customs officer would not give me 90 day visa and told me to get the DNI or Tramit. So he let me into the country but did not stamp my passport with the 90 day tourist visa.[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Guessing I need to do some paper work if i ever want to leave and come back."[/background]

This is a link to the thread:

http://baexpats.org/topic/25849-3-strikes-your-out/page__hl__%20denied%20%20reentry

In the same thread Bajo_cero2 said:

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I have 2 friends from tango who got the same warning this week. "[/background]

There are a couple of other people in the thread who say similar things, and you post several times in that thread as well. The only time I've heard of the three overstays rule is through this forum, but this is also my only regular contact with "permatourists". The sense I get is that it is up to the discretion of the immigrations officer, but that multiple people have gotten warnings for having multiple overstays, with the implication that after the third, reentry could be denied. I would obviously defer to the judgement of the actual immigrations lawyer on this forum, with the caveat that it does seem clear that if you are staying under 180 days/year, leaving the country and re-entering is a legitimate way to avoid applying for the extension at migraciones.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I passed the three strikes 'rule' with no consequences. I know people who have been doing this for years and years.

So, you continue to draw walks?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

I may conceive that as a lawyer you might very technically come up with such a comparison... however and
assuming the OP is an honest person, don't you a see a difference between a person who murders people in society, and a foreigner from a wealthier country spending valuable hard currency in such a society and, further, preoccupied with how to legally spend more?

Is there any difference of an illegal immigrant fron a wealthy country from one from a poor country?

Mi sangre was another illegal immigrant who spent a lot of money...so what?
http://www.perfil.com/mobile/?nota=/contenidos/2014/06/02/noticia_0007.html

 

[Flay]

I'm in the same position as the original poster. My girlfriend works at Ezeiza and has spoken to some of the guys that work on the immigration about it and they have conftold her that there was no "rule", but that "in general" they adopted a three strikes policy.

 

[steveinbsas]

I would obviously defer to the judgement of the actual immigrations lawyer on this forum, with the caveat that it does seem clear that if you are staying under 180 days/year, leaving the country and re-entering is a legitimate way to avoid applying for the extension at migraciones.

Yes, leaving and reentering is a legitimate way to avoid applying for the extension at migraciones for those staying under 180 days per year.

Most of those making the "visa runs" are staying year round and believe that getting a new 90 day visa is a legitimate way of staying in the country.

And I believe that "in the judgement of the actual immigrations lawyer on this forum" that is not the case.

Those who are staying in the country year round and are making the visa runs are doing so in order to avoid an overstay, and if I correctly understand the immigrations lawyer of this forum, there isn't any legal difference.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Touche!
The only difference is that inside the country is too difficult to be deported while to reject you at custom is easy and depends on the humor of the immigration agent.

 

[Matt84]

Is there any difference of an illegal immigrant fron a wealthy country from one from a poor country?

Mi sangre was another illegal immigrant who spent a lot of money...so what?
http://www.perfil.co...ticia_0007.html

Sorry I'm just being "dialectic" here, but: then you were comparing an american student who wants to spend some gap years in B.A. with a murdered and now you are comparing him with a trafficker with blood in his hands?

There is a difference when it comes to the self interest of a sovereign nation-state such as Argentina or any other country.
The 19th C open immigration laws of Argentina were after all created to lure a population of skill-rich immigrants (but also capital-rich immigrants and investors) so they were created in Argentina's self interest (as part of a social engineering plan).

Isn't in 21c Dollar-starved (and skill and diversity-starved too) Argentina's best interest to maximize the amount of perma-tourists and even gain a reputation as a country that is friendly and welcoming to all First World nations?
I mean for Argentina's best interests....
I'm not talking about "predatory" investors, but someone like the OP or many of us members of this forum

 

[ben]

So, you continue to draw walks?

No, I regularized my situation eventually but was in no hurry about it.

I did get berated once by a guy in Mendoza - while paying the fine on the way out of the country - who felt it his patriotic duty to chastise me for not getting my papers in order more quickly. When I pointed out to him what exactly that entailed, he did not press the point further, preferring to explain me Mendozans' relationship to Chile. Quite confused - they feel closer to Chile than to Buenos Aires, but they can never forgive Chile for their traitorous conduct during the Falklands War. Never mind that Galtieri at the time made plain his intentions to attack Chile next. Whatever.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

No, I regularized my situation eventually but was in no hurry about it.

I did get berated once by a guy in Mendoza - while paying the fine on the way out of the country - who felt it his patriotic duty to chastise me for not getting my papers in order more quickly. When I pointed out to him what exactly that entailed, he did not press the point further, preferring to explain me Mendozans' relationship to Chile. Quite confused - they feel closer to Chile than to Buenos Aires, but they can never forgive Chile for their traitorous conduct during the Falklands War. Never mind that Galtieri at the time made plain his intentions to attack Chile next. Whatever.

So, neither strike three nor ball four, then? Still at bat, and fouling them off.