I’m betting that the next government will also have bigger fish to fry than this, though it seems to me that the director of migración has some leeway to address this issue. I remain deeply disappointed in Zamora for not having done so, despite some initial forays, and can’t for the life of me understand why he was promoted in the Chinchilla administration after having essentially failed as director of immigration. (And as minister of security, Chinchilla basically gave him a blank check, which anyone could have filled out and done something.)

One hypothesis is that some perpetual tourists throw around enough money in the right places to prevent any action on this issue. I don’t know this to be true, but if it were it would explain the inaction.

Anyway, yes, clarity in the law and its application is in everybody’s interest, even the perpetual tourists’. They don’t know when they will be singled out for hassles either.

Also, like in Lav’s situation, I think there’s a real need to regularize (a better term than legalize perhaps) residents who don’t fit easily into an existing category.

But I bet the Solís administration has far more pressing things to address. It would be nice though if the new immigration director attended to this.

Where your legal theory is correct is that as long as foreigners continue to receive a visa stamp, they are not illegally in the country during the duration of the visas. When foreigners continue to receive updated visa stamps on time, they continue to be in Costa Rica legally, and it doesn’t matter how many years or decades the process is repeated.

However, they are legally inside the country as tourists, not residents, and this has ramifications. Specifically, they can be kicked out at any point. There need be no due process and there is no right to appeal. Similarly, the immigration authorities are under no legal obligation to renew a perpetual tourist’s visa, and they sometimes don’t. Thus, it’s not actually a category of legal residency, even though it often operates as one in a de facto manner.

My guess is that perpetual tourism has arisen largely because immigration has its hands full with more serious issues (like tens of thousands of illegal Nicas and others), there are only perhaps 35,000 or so perpetual tourists, and most of those cause no problems. Thus, even though immigration periodically floats policy reforms that would clarify this gray area (like limiting visa renewals to one), the reforms have yet to be passed. I suspect that the main reason is that it’s a low priority issue.

However, at the end of the day, tourists are tourists, not residents, and no stretch of the term “tourist” will ever be extensive enough to include “resident.” Perpetual tourism is therefore a gray area and not “totally legit.”

However, the policies are what they are now, and it strikes me as a stretch to argue that you are forced to be a perpetual tourist because there isn’t a category for you. To make this kind of argument, you have to first assume that you have the right to live in a foreign country regardless of whether it wants you, and it’s up to the foreign country to make it easy for you to do so legally. I can think of no theory of the state or human rights document that would substantiate this right.

I also wonder about your hesitance to deposit money in a local bank. There is, as you allude to, a residency category in which you could qualify, assuming you have the money, namely rentista. My opinion is that the recent increase in the amount required to become a rentista was wrongheaded. Once again, it amounted to Tico lawmakers acting on the belief that foreigners are only good for their money, rather than appreciating that immigrant of more modest but still solvent means often make the greatest contributions (while the wealthy are sometimes just parasites). However, the law is what it is now and Costa Rica had the right to pass it. My concern though would be that if you have the money but simply don’t trust the banks with it, why would you live here in the first place? If faith in the country’s financial sector is your concern, it would seem to me that you’d be better off living in a country where you had more faith. At the same time, I’m not sure that any society benefits from immigrants who are unwilling to shoulder the risks and responsibilities of residency along with enjoying whatever the benefits are that attract them.

I don’t know your situation and don’t want to come across too strong. There are lots of situations in which IMO perpetual tourism makes temporary sense, and while DaveP is simply wrong about it being totally legit, it’s obviously tolerated and not illegal as long as a foreigner continues to successfully receive the visa stamps, which can happen for many, many years. I also agree that Costa Rica’s failure to have an easier residency category for you is shortsighted. Even so, it is a sovereign country and as such has the right to have whatever immigration laws it wants, even boneheaded ones.