30-day visa for US citizens is alive and well

As of February 6, the 30-day visa for US tourists entering the country seems to be alive but ailing. After the anti-gang law which reduced the duration of tourist visas and vehement denials by the tourism czar, our clients report that they have are being told upon entry that their tourist visas have a 30-day duration, but when they show up for the Filiacion registration, Immigration turns them away saying that there is "an understanding" that the visa lasts 90 days. The stamp in the right says it all. Go figure!

Visa agreements between Panama and the US are in 2 exchanges of notes:

Reciprocal agreement for gratis nonimmigrant visas.*
Exchange of notes at Panama March 27 and May 22 and 25, 1956. Entered into force June 1, 1956. 7 UST 905; TIAS 3573; 268 UNTS 333.

Agreement modifying the agreement of March 27 and May 22 and 25, 1956 for gratis nonimmigrant visas.*
Exchange of notes at Panama June 14 and 17, 1971. Entered into force June 17, 1971. 22 UST 815; TIAS 7142; 796 UNTS 353.

NOTE * The status of this agreement is under review.

These exchanges of notes allow for granting of multiple-entry tourist visas of up to 48 months. The US government publication "Treaties in Force" lists them as "under review" but the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties ratified their validity. Their text is available in the UN Treaty Series website or by email from this blog.

The 2008 draft Immigration law - if enacted - will provide that tourist visas have a duration of 30 days, renewable for 60 more days.

IPAT reply on residential tourism

We thank IPAT for their reply to our July 29, 2007 post on residential tourism. Unlike newspapers in Panama, we encourage free discussion of ideas which is why http://mypanamalawyer.blogspot.com/ has Comment icons for direct posting by IPAT and anybody else. We have eliminated the email addresses to avoid spambots:


------ Forwarded Message
From: Ruben Blades
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:05:08 -0500
To: Carl-Fredrik Nordstrom
Subject: Residential tourism


Send this to the person responsible for the
publication:

a) From what I read you do not dispute there is a
difference between tourist and resident; no part of
your blog argues against my basic assertion
b) your defense of the term seems to be based on the
fact that ,
"since other countries use it it must be right".
c) I suggest you read the "Louvre Museum-turned into
condos" example I placed on our Internet. It
graphically explains the differences, both economical
and existencial, between residence and tourism;
d) As a lawyer you obviously make money representing
clients interested in residential purchases and an
intermediary for all the legal consequences of
residential requests involving navegating the
burocratic oceans in any country of the world. You are
not a hotel owner, nor do you represent cab drivers,
restaurants, hotel personnel, guides,etc. My feeling
is you'd rather have residents than tourists since the
former represent your "bread and butter". That is not
my position.
I have no problem with people coming to live in
Panama. I welcome the possibility. What I do not
welcome is the notion that tourism and residence are
the same thing, nor that they should be considered as
a whole. They are different activities and should be
regulated differently. IPAT does not regulate
immigration, nor does it regulate taxes for instance.
You should know that and probably do. But your
arguments seems to be directed toward justifying the
notion of "residential tourism". It is absurd to mix
the two. I guess that's the lawyer in me.

Ruben Blades

Carl-Fredrik Nordström
Sub-Gerente General / Deputy General Manager
Instituto Panameño de Turismo -IPAT
Avenida Samuel Lewis y Calle Gerardo Ortega
Edificio Central, Nivel 100
( Teléfono: (507) 526-7110, (507) 526-7000
) Fax: (507) 526-7121
8 www.ipat.gob.pa



------ End of Forwarded Message