Visa/Residency advice - Student Visa, citizenship, forming a S.A.

[Neil]

So many trips,
Maybe you were missing that famous Uy chivito ..aka. Heart attack on a bun !

 

[steveinbsas]

Getting money seems a valid reason

Not when the person making those day trips can easily be regarded by migraciones as living in Argentina without having a category of residency which permits the individual to do so.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Most expats won't know what a "fraud in the payment of the legal residency means," and I'm one of them. Please elaborate.

A deep analysis of the DNU 70/2017 show that MM enacted a Medieval Age immigration regime know as aubana where foreigners must pay capitation also know as poll tax. This is what the boss of litigation of Immigrations asserted.
During the Medieval times the address was very important because it determinate to whom you had to pay poll tax, formarige (a tax for marriage) or albanagio (a tax for becoming a citizen) and to change the address was considered a fraud to the patrimony of the Lord. This is what romas called servus fugitivus or running slave in the Us.
Servus fugitivus and fraud to the poll tax were both crimes.
This means that MM enacted crimes by decree that is forbidden.

The question here is whether or not graciousness would grant a student visa (temporary residency) to an individual who has previously made a number of visa runs.

When you say the precaria would be granted automatically, does this mean the student visa/temporary residency would automatically be granted in this case, and migrciones would not regard the prior irregularity as a crime which would resutt in the application being denied?[/QUOTE]

If I understand correctly, temporary residency based a student visa cannot be upgraded to permanent residency. If that is correct, there would never be an application for PR.

That being said, if, in the future, immigration regards visa runs as a crime, what do you think might happen to someone who made visa runs in the past, but in the past couple years, heeding the "official" warnings, regularized their status and got temporary residency?

Are you saying that you believe that they would be able to continue to renew their temporary residency in the future but their application for permanent residency might be rejected based on their previous "criminal" activity?

Yes.

Is there any way to know at this point how likely that is to happen?

This is what immigration is arguing right now at the cases I have.

Even if it's too soon to tell, it's a great (if not the best) selling point for citizenship I've heard so far.

Immigration always deal with irregularities as illegalities but now the DNU enacted crimes. I was pushing to envelope too much, so now immigration and Judges appointed by MM abandoned the euphemisms because they are dealing with prision from 10 years up to lifetime so, what they are saying is that MM is guilty, not them.
And here is were the visa runs fits. The chamber explained the decree using decree comment of decree 532/45 where the fake tourist is an crime: espionaje.
The 5 Americans were rejected for fake tourist.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Also, as far fetched as this may sound, if migraciones considers past visa runs as crimes, what would prevent them from "reevaluating" the immigration status of any permanent resident who made visa runs prior to getting their permanent residency, and claim that the payment for their visa constituted a "fraud?"

PS: Of course the word "graciousness"in my previous post should have been "migraciones."

Nothing. They can do it.

 

[steveinbsas]

Nothing. They can do it.

Is there a statute of limitations? How far back could they go?

 

[steveinbsas]

A deep analysis of the DNU 70/2017 show that MM enacted a Medieval Age immigration regime know as aubana where foreigners must pay capitation also know as poll tax. This is what the boss of litigation of Immigrations asserted...

...This means that MM enacted crimes by decree that is forbidden....

...Immigration always deal with irregularities as illegalities but now the DNU enacted crimes. I was pushing to envelope too much, so now immigration and Judges appointed by MM abandoned the euphemisms because they are dealing with prision from 10 years up to lifetime so, what they are saying is that MM is guilty, not them.

Well, it sounds like you have them on the defensive.

If you prevail (as you did with the case of restoring control of the citizenship process to the courts), will that mean that migraciones will not be able to deny permanent residency in the future to those who made visa runs in the past...or is this simply an issue of decriminalizing the visa runs?

 

[ventanilla]

Bajo always sounds borderline insane with these weird rants about 'Islamic law' and 'medieval law', but then he's also destroying these regressive laws in court and has helped countless people get citizenship, so I don't even know what to think

 

[ventanilla]

Also, as far fetched as this may sound, if migraciones considers past visa runs as crimes, what would prevent them from "reevaluating" the immigration status of any permanent resident who made visa runs prior to getting their permanent residency, and claim that the payment for their visa constituted a "fraud?"

PS: Of course the word "graciousness"in my previous post should have been "migraciones."

A visa run where one is accepted into the country can't be a crime, it's a totally regular status. A crime would be overstaying the visa or entering illegally.

 

[lunar]

... but then he's also destroying these regressive laws in court ...

I think you are confusing words "lawyer" and "lawmaker".

 

[steveinbsas]

A visa run where one is accepted into the country can't be a crime, it's a totally regular status. A crime would be overstaying the visa or entering illegally.

I don't think entering the country and getting a 90 day tourist stamp is a crime (in and of itself). The "crime" is repeatedly entering the country under the guise (pretense) of being a tourist (when one is not), and that (if I correctly understand what BC2 has posted), may be considered a crime under existing laws against espionage.

I encourage him to clarify if that's not the case.