No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.Then answer is yes, I can, but when you follow your question with "It is the same exact logic." It demonstrates that you are not open to a different view to your own,
Citation, please? Once again, you've avoided explaining how the logic is different. To me the logic is "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed". You seem to be avoiding explaining why one is different than the other. You think my tone is rude and you think I'm closed minded so you can just avoid discussing the point raised.but in fact the logic is not, from a legal interpretation point of view, the same at all.
You seem to think that you are explaining why the logic is different. The form of the argument is exactly the same, "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed". You are saying that the intent was to clarify the types of work allowed but not footwear - but again, you are assuming that they are trying to clarify the types of work allowed - I don't see that at all - I see a clear and unambiguous statement. Therefore to me, the logic is the same - claiming that an undiscussed exception is allowed because it is not explicitly prohibited. If it was explicitly saying, "you can't work for a Spanish company", that would be different - you'd have some good points there. But it doesn't say that. In order for me to accept your argument, I have to accept that it explicitly discusses types of work for purposes of visa requirement. But that is exactly the opposite of the point I am trying to make - that it doesn't. So, in order to consider your argument, I have to first assume that it is true. We call that begging the question.
But if you could explain that in clear language in a way that doesn't create new problems - that would have a chance to convince me. But you've avoided that for the second time.
There is a legal adage in the states, "f you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." When you avoid discussing the facts or the law, you're pounding the table. I asked a simple and direct question. You claim that you have an obvious answer but you are keeping it a secret, instead choosing to tone police and explain that you're justified in ignoring my simple question because I won't listen. Why don't you prove me wrong instead of coming up with excuses?
It's a simple question and I'll ask it again, slightly altered. Please explain why the logic of "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed" can only be applied to the case of "foreign remote work" and not "purple socks". I would expect that that would be the first question of the opposing attorney or judge. I'm not even a lawyer, just a guy with a lifelong love of logic, rhetoric, and dialectic, but that is an incredibly obvious flaw in that logic.
I've asked a simple question, a third time. You can chose to find and excuse not to answer it for a third time if you want.
This assumes that the language is vague - iI find that it is not.A lawyer will always look to clarify uncertainties in a legal text (and of course will look to back up his own client's argument) by reading the whole text and looking for context and the intent behind the legislation.
Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.In this law, the intent is to define what a foreigner can or cannot do while in Spain under a NLV
You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.and Article 47 offers a view on what the law intended, i.e. he / she can't work for a Spanish company or a foreign company which operates in Spain.
I read the article 47 that I can see to be saying, "On this visa you can't work, so you have to show income from a source like one of these..." None of those sources of income involve work. The word "income" does not necessarily imply work. Again, you seem to be making your assumption and working backwards.
Is there a specific line that you think states or even implies that the accepted sources of income can include "actividad laboral o lucrativa". The only time it is mentioned to (once again) say that it can't be done with this visa. I can't even see where anyone thinks there is any exception.
That is not explaining the logic of the law, just stating why proof of income is important.Los extranjeros que deseen residir en España sin realizar una actividad laboral o lucrativa deberán contar con medios económicos suficientes para el periodo de residencia que solicitan, o acreditar una fuente de percepción periódica de ingresos, para sí mismo y, en su caso, su familia, en las siguientes cuantías, que se establecen con carácter de mínimas y referidas al momento de solicitud del visado o de renovación de la autorización:
The purpose of article 47 to me is clearly to discuss the means test. It's saying that you can't use work to prove income. This does not change that article 46 clearly and unambiguously said that no work is allowed. Article 46 dealt with the preconditions to be eligible for the visa - one of which is no work. Article 47 deals with the means test and what can be used.
The last line I suspect is the best case that you have.
But that just means that if you are part owner of a company based in Spain, then you have to prove that you don't work for them. Perhaps people want to interpret that to mean that you can work for it if it isn't based in Spain. And that's of course a ludicrous argument that that was the intention of the law because the idea that people could work for a foreign company that is not based in Spain while they live in Spain was a far away concept. When the law was written, the only real possibility of working for a foreign company was if it was based in Spain. They are just saying, "we don't care if it is a Spanish company. a foreign company based in Spain, or some combination - you can't work there. A "foreign company not based in Spain" is not listed, not because they wanted a secret loophole, but because that wasn't a thing back then.Si los medios económicos proceden de acciones o participaciones en empresas españolas, mixtas o extranjeras radicadas en España, el interesado acreditará, mediante certificación de las mismas, que no ejerce actividad laboral alguna en dichas empresas, y presentará declaración jurada en tal sentido.
They listed and explicitly prohibited every category of work that existed at the time. I don't understand the argument that they intended to allow a loophole for a type of work that didn't yet exist. Especially since the letter of the law is so clear. Listing "empresas españolas, mixtas o extranjeras radicadas en España" does not mean that they are potential work based sources of income disallowed, but to say that if your income comes from those companies (again, listing the only possibilities at the time, essentially any company) that you have to prove that you aren't working for them. The effect at the time of writing was that no work for any company was allowed. Unless you want to argue that the drafters were psychic, I don't think there is an argument that their intention was to leave an unstated loophole for future digital nomads.
Again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the law does work that way in Spain. It doesn't work that way here. I would have thought it doesn't work that way anywhere.
Again, in article 46, which deals with qualifying for the visa, it says no work. It talks just as much about digital nomads and foreign companies as it does about footwear - nothing. There is not discussion of nationality of the companies until it gets to the section dealing with proving means (and in that case lists every category conceivable at the time of writing.)There is no intention in the legislation to restrict the colour of undergarments worn, therefore the logic is not exactly the same.
I also think you're being very free with your inference of intent. I understand that in law sometime you have to think about what is implicit, but not when it is explicitly saying the opposite.
Article 46 deals with requirement. That's why its title is "Requisitos". One of these requirement is no work, without any qualification. It further goes on to say that you have to prove means. And it explicitly say how you prove means, reminding you that you can't use work. That doesn't mean that that is the only reason to not allow work, just reiterating that it can't be a factor for the requirement of a means test - that's why that language is in that subsection dealing with the general idea of a means test that will be flushed out later on in article 47. They seem to be going out of their way to say "no work" every chance they get. Heck, it's the first thing mentioned - as a definition of the purpose of the visa, only for people looking for "residencia temporal sin realizar actividades laborales o profesionales". The once again left out the qualification "in Spain". Do lawyers get charged by the letter in Spain? They seem to pass up every opportunity to clarify this. My experience with legal documents is the opposite - they spare no word for clarity.
Article 47 specifically deals with the requirements so show means. That's why its title is, "Medios económicos a acreditar para la obtención de una autorización de residencia temporal." It doesn't override the unrelated statement in article 46 prohibiting work - article 47 doesn't deal with requirements, but with showing means. (I'm sorry, but the idea that article 47 is saying, "This article deals with something different but when the last section talked about basic requirements for the visa and that no work is allowed, we for got to include some clarification so we'll do it here in a section that deals with a different topic." - I'm sorry, but that is bizarre to me.) If they wanted to clarify what types of work are allowed or not allowed, they would have created a separate article for that, like they did for the means tests. People are mixing and matching language from different sections to get to the conclusion that they want.