Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner

41 - 43 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 · (Edited)
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,
No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.

but in fact the logic is not, from a legal interpretation point of view, the same at all.
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.

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.

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.
This assumes that the language is vague - iI find that it is not.

In this law, the intent is to define what a foreigner can or cannot do while in Spain under a NLV
Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.

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.
You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

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.

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:
That is not explaining the logic of the law, just stating why proof of income is important.

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.

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.
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.

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.

There is no intention in the legislation to restrict the colour of undergarments worn, therefore the logic is not exactly the same.
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.)

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.



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.

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.



Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.



You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

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.

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.

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.)

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.
I thought I might inject a few thoughts into this increasingly long, rambling thread
No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.



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.

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.



Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.



You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

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.

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.

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.)

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.
No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.



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.

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.



Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.



You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

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.

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.

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.)

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.
No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.



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.

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.



Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.



You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

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.

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.

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.)

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.
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.

Working for a foreign company not based in Spain actually WAS a thing back then - just not remotely. The NLV requires you to spend 183 days of the year in Spain (not 365) and establish yourself as a tax resident. So, the law contemplated that NLV holders could go to the UK or USA or France for a period of time, do some work, get paid, and come back. (With complete transparency with Spanish authorities about any and all worldwide income).

The issue that has arisen (maybe from Brexit and COVID) is that USA consulate staff and even some people sitting behind desks at immigration offices in Spain are misinterpreting and misapplying the law.

Here is one example from the LA Consulate's list of requirements for the NLV:

11. Copy of most recent Tax Return. Residency applicants cannot have/leave loans or mortgages in the United States when applying for residency in spain.

This is not referred to in the law. This was not part of my NLV application in 2019, nor was it part of my renewal application in Fall 2020. Consulate staff do not change the application of the law within Spain with website posts.

My wife and I have had some sleepless nights both with my NLV and her UK passport holder permanent residence. Thankfully, Spain is full of well educated, competent attorneys and accountants who can help. We found several and they have solved problems, clarified confusions, and explained to us how the laws are applied within Spain.

The general theme on this forum seems to be that Spain is full of lawyers that will tell you whatever you want to hear, give you bad advice, then disappear. That has not been our experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
Working for a foreign company not based in Spain actually WAS a thing back then - just not remotely... So, the law contemplated that NLV holders could go to the UK or USA or France for a period of time, do some work
Yeah, I get your point. But I think that what I'm saying is still valid. The point of the law is not that "if you possess this visa, you cannot work anywhere". The point is "if you are in Spain on this visa, you will not work". I don't think any visa anywhere controls what you do in other countries. If you are in the UK, you are no longer "on" that visa. I think it is unthinkable that this (or any other visa) intends to restrict what you do in other countries, especially your home country. It doesn't discuss work physically outside of Spain because they have no jurisdiction of over what you do outside of Spain. The visa deals with what you do when you are physically in Spain.

So, I don't think your criticism is valid - my comment was only about the kind of work you do while physically in Spain, and in the section on requirements it unambiguously says "no work". It only talks about other kinds of work in the unrelated section on the means test, clarifying that you have to provide proof of no work if a company is giving you income. They further clarified with a list (so there was no confusion) of every possible situation you could work in Spain. Nowhere does it say that list was exhaustive. Since the list is just explanatory, it does not imply that if in the future a new way to work while physically in Spain that it would be exempted. If that is what they meant, it would have taken a dozen words to clarify and they would have put it in the section that dealt with the no work rule, not in the section on the means test. As I read the law, they took every opportunity to emphasize "no work" and offered no exceptions.

The issue that has arisen (maybe from Brexit and COVID) is that USA consulate staff and even some people sitting behind desks at immigration offices in Spain are misinterpreting and misapplying the law.
That is a fair observation. But it doesn't really make the point, except that we should take with a grain of salt how consulates choose to process the visas. But that door swings both ways. If we say that that isn't reliable evidence that some consulates sometimes require proof of no work, then we can't use the fact that some consulates don't. That has never really been the crux of my case, other than to counteract people saying, "well some consulates let you get away with it" and "some lawyer's web page says its cool" - I can easily find counter examples. People want to cherry pick the data they want. I'm calling that out. People only want to apply that logic to the "no work" argument, not to the "yes work" argument. That kind of crap pisses me off.

But the root of my point is in the unambiguous language in the law. Again, maybe in Spain it is different, but in the US, the law trumps what consular officials and a few lawyers' web pages. The constitution, the law, judicial rulings/precedents, in that order. That's how it works in most countries.

Again, I think the law should be updated to adjust to the new situation. But giving people legal advice that, "Sure, the law kind of says the opposite, but if we squint really hard and draw lines of yarn between unrelated sections, we can kind of build a case that the law says something else, so go ahead and risk having your life destroyed by doing something the law possibly/probably doesn't allow." I find that callous and insensitive.

If people were saying, "The law seems to say you can't do it, but it's an old law, it's a new world, and people seem to get away with it, so you're probably OK, so as long as you know the risks..." that would be different. I would be fine with that. No, people are saying, "It is 100% legal, just do it, ignore the consular officials and lawyers saying the opposite, ignore what the law explicitly says and listen to the shady interpretation that tells us what we want to hear."
 
41 - 43 of 43 Posts
Top