- This topic has 1 reply, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am sure this subject has been discussed. If I did an exrensive search I would find my answer. But Im hoping for an answer here.
Other than not having to exit the country every 90 days for 72 hours. What other benefits from residency are gained? If I understand correctly from reading elsewhere and other posts. You can join the INS OR CAJA health system without being a residence.
With the new proposed increase in pensionada and rentista funding requirements I think leaving the country for 3 days is a viable option. Are there any other benefits gained from residency?you cannot join CAJA if you are NOT a legal resident. And leaving the country every 90 days because an added expense and a chore after a while, and they will, or already have, cracked down on perpetual tourists. If this immigration bill passes, it’s time to look elsewhere for retirement, and I don’t know where that is. Sigh.
Don’t start looking too soon, Maravilla. I now have it from two competent attorneys that a retroactive application of the new income standards to those already holding residency would never stand up to a constitutional challenge, a challenge which ARCR would be sure to mount.
Any non-resident can be in Costa Rica only at the pleasure of the Ministry of Immigration and within the limits of the law. Non-residents could be deported at any moment for cause or not. You could go to Panama for your three-day sabbatical and find out that it’s your new home away from home.
And Maravilla is correct that one must be a resident to enroll in the CAJA system. INS will sell health insurance (at much, much higher cost) to non-residents, but INS excludes pre-existing conditions and the coverage is less comprehensive.
Does anyone personally know a perpetual tourist who lives in CR who has been deported or refused entry back in Costa Rica because of being a perpetual tourist?
hi guys
i know of 2 people personally that were not let back into this country for coming in and out of the country.. these 2 have been here for a few years and was actually snagged while leaving on one of the trips going back to the U.S.
although one of the guys that this happened to had overstayed his visa 6 months and while he was leaving they stamped his passport something that does not allow him to come back for 6 years..
OK..the one guy was refused entry for the obvious reason of non compliance with visa regs. But what about the other person? My question is whether or not it is common for the government to enforce an interpretation of the spirit of the law.
What part of the law does this contravene? It says you may stay 90 days then you must leave for 72 hours. If the intent was for you not to return for 6 months, it would say so..
If you are actually leaving the country as required, they have no legal reason to ban you from coming back………. Unless of course you thought that was a dumb idea and paid someone to stamp your passport or stayed for six months without leaving.
Alberto
Alberto, I agree that the letter of the law should always be sufficient because we never lack for enough words to make the spirit of the law as clear as the letter of the law. On the other hand, Costa Ricans are not known for exactitude in language and much of their culture, and perhaps law, is based on intent rather than obvious clarity. If the official wearing the badge who is in charge of stamping your passport upon re entry does not feel like doing it for whatever personal reason, what can you, a foreign national, do about it at that point? This is why I ask for examples of perpetual tourists being turned back for no other reason than that they are tourists.
How can one present proof to you that people have been refused re-entry?
Many times people are refused re-entry unless the purchase a return ticket, if their travel has originated in Costa Rica, but one can’t ‘show you’ that this is the case, either.
You know doubt would not accept the ‘he says, she says’ scenario.
Those of us who have lived here for many years know of people who have never returned.Not having read the law, I will, nevertheless, go out on a limb and suggest that the laws governing visas and residency do not intend to create a class of (small “r”) residents who live here long-term using the vehicle of “perpetual tourism” to validate their presence. If the law intended to permit foreign nationals to live in Costa Rica for an indefinite length of time without becoming residents, such a status would have been created, but what would it be?
Rather, it appears, the law which establishes the ninety-day tourism visa (for actual tourists, not as a dodge around the residency laws) is at best unfortunately silent in the matter of serial application for tourism status every ninety-three days. Or maybe it isn’t silent and we just don’t know it.
Either way, think about it . . . Why would the government create a law which contravenes another law which they have gone to the extent of creating an entire Ministry to enforce? Why have a Ministry of Migracion at all if the law is equally satisfied with simply having foreign nationals leave the country every three months? And why would the law which establishes residency (pensionado, rentista, investista(sp?), etc) contain standards which the Ministry of Migracion enforces (which suggests that compliance with those standards must be somehow important to someone) if perpetual tourism (with virtually no standards applied) is equally acceptable under that law?
Clearly, Costa Rica intends that people who live in the country be legal residents, that they comply with the standards for residency. There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the intent.
I have entered CR more than 15 times in the last 3 years, and never once did I NOT get my passport stamped. When you go for renewal of your cedula, they are able to check how many months you spent in CR by logging onto the immigration computer and checking your entry dates and looking at your boarding passes. If you own property in CR, and are thinking of building a house, I don’t know why you would risk getting caught as a perpetual tourist and being deported and not being able to re-enter the country for 5 years or more. The laws in CR are capricious. This month perpetual tourism may be okay; next month they may decide to get rid of everyone who has abused this privilege. As for getting the passport stamped without actually leaving the country, don’t do it! You are asking for nothing but a huge nightmare if you get caught, cuz they ain’t gonna let you go to your house and pack up all your valuables. They be taking you to the airport and making you buy a one-way outta there. At least for us residents, if we get deported for some reason, immigration has on deposit enough money to send us to Miami.
I visit Costa Rica 4 times a year..usually for between a week and 10 days. It is tourism because I do not have a house built on my property. I stay at hotels. I rent cars and I see the sights.
How many times can an individual visit Costa Rica and spend two or three months visiting during a one year period? Once? Twice? Three times? If no laws are broken by a visitor, and no harm is brought to citizens, what determines when a visitor is breaking the spirit of the law? Is there a definition of this spirit of the law or is this left up to the whims of whatever government in in office? Is there a legal definition for perpetual tourism or at the very least, written guidelines for officials and public warnings? I haven’t seen any yet. Perhaps some of you have.
If you build a home there, and spend your time there with the exception of leaving the country every 90 days for 72 hours, wouldn’t you assume they would assume that YOU LIVE THERE??????? If you do that I have to believe they are going to think you are using the law to your own advantage when in fact YOU ARE A RESIDENT and not a tourist. Now if you come for 3 months, leave for 2 months, and come back for another 3 months, etc. they may look at it differently, but leaving every 90 days for 72 hours isn’t going to look so hot to any official, especially when they know that CR is your primary residence. I don’t know why you are belaboring this point. If you are going to live there, you need to get residency, not try to find a way NOT to get residency and take the risk of having your butt thrown out, which could be done at the whim of the government if they think you are violating the spirit of the law. I think David Murray said it best. Why would they have this law it if contravenes the residency laws?
I am not belaboring this point. Ambiguities of law always bug me. I intend to become a resident and not a perpetual tourist. However, seeing the laws changed so quickly and without warning makes me nervous. Who is to say politics might one day require other, more draconian actions pointed at scapegoats such as foreign nationals. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, my own country has done such things in the past.
Just for the sake of playing devils advocate; Why are they putting these extreme new measures into place regarding immigration and not mentioning a word in the new law about PT’s? They obviously are aware that many expats are living more or less full-time in CR as PT’s so this begs the question why not even one sentence? The whole thing is a bit curious? I think one could imagine all sorts of reasons. If they make the new laws applicable to those who are already living there legally then it’s anything goes, what next gringos can’t own property? I think David is right and the courts will side in favor of those “legals” already living in the country and protect their original terms of residency. It will be interesting to see how this finaly plays out…it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
