Chile Forum

I think ther problem is "“Tompkins is here as a tourist, and he has renewed his visa in accordance with the law … but, he has to be very careful because tourists are prohibited from becoming actors in Chilean politics,” said Vidal, referring to an op-ed published last week in which Tompkins criticized Chile’s environmental policies. "

Yea, there are such restrictions, but good luck with that one.

Here is the basic bottom line on tourist visa. Are you in the country for financial gain with the intention of staying here ( i.e. are you a burden of the State or something to that effect)? Tompkins seems like he can provide his own roads (hundreds of kms of them) and other infrastructure. The president being annoyed with Tompkins comments does not qualify him as a burden on the State, and tourist and Chileans alike do have free speech rights in Chile under the constitution and other laws.

I know Tompkins is out of the country as much as he is in Chile just from the occasional conversations we have with his people. There is a requirement of 365 days to get residency, and he may have very possibly never qualified for it (really don't know or care). If there are other legal means for him to accomplish what he wants to do such as Chilean companies and organizations, then why would he need residency? Why is the head of Marine Harvest or Endesa not being asked for their residency? The Chilean stock market and economy would collapse if residency was a requirement.

More important, why is Marine Harvest and Endesa not being asked about their political activities in the country and political donations?

Might I point out how most foreigners are allowed in all over the World by thousands of countries on tourist or other temporary visas to live and reside in the country without needing a residency visas. Why is it somehow wrong for Tompkins to do the same, or Chile to allow him to do the same for non-profit conservation work?

There are hundreds and thousands ( hell, likely half our forum members fall in to this category), who are just living in Chile, have income from outside the country, and no real need for residency, are not required to ask for residency, and even if they did because of the 365 days of temporary residency requirement would often not qualify. You also can loose your residency, once you have had it, for not being in the country for sufficient days each year.

I know of one gringa who has lived here for more than 14 years, applied for her residency, gotten it, and then lost it because she had to be out of the country for an extended period of time. Of those 14 years or so, she has lost her residency (married to a Chilean by the way) at least 2 because she could not complete the process, or was simply not able to return to Chile. She does not work in Chile, and has dumped several million dollars in to the country over the years enjoying Chile. Most of her time has been on a tourist visa for easy access to Chile.

I have never once heard any Chilean anywhere complain about the tourist visa system in Chile. I don't think most Chileans care under what visa you are in Chile. Hell, even immigration does not seem to care much.

We have lots of clients who buy property in Chile, and have never been to Chile or have any intention of coming to Chile. They are simply investors and speculators. Tompkins could have just as easily bought Pumalin and the rest of his land, and done nothing with it.

Here is my question, how many people on this forum have been to Pumalin? Now, how many people have been to a Chilean National park? Now, how many have been to both?

The reason I ask is that infrastructure for protecting Pumalin and its wildlife trumps many of the best national parks I have seen in the United States and Canada. Low impact roads, trails, camp sites, buildings from recovered downed trees, and so on.

Mean while, the president has eliminated all funding for the Sendero de Chile project, garbage sits piled up in parks across Chile, protected trees are being cut and stolen, signs and trail markers are being stolen if they existed at all, one or two rangers are being tasked to watch thousands of hectares of reserves, visitor centers are falling down.

Pumalin is a drop in the bucket compared to the totals of Tompkins lands in the South. It just happens to be one of the most well marked on the map. We stumble across his organizations holdings all the time in the Patagonia working on land deals for clients, doing title searches, or uncrossing a bad property line. They are everywhere south of Puerto Montt.

Tompkins is not the only one, he is just one of the bigger ones. There are a lot of foriengers running conservation projects big and small in Southern Chile. They do things like buy land, hire local forestry engineers and local workers to plant trees and recover land that the government would otherwise pay someone to plant pine trees or do nothing. One group in the Futa area payed to add another English teacher to the local public school recently. We have clients who buy just a few hectares and just let it sit. Others are running eco-tourism camps (real eco-tourism, not fake pisco sour eco-tourism) and others are running experimental cooperative type projects. Some are required to have residency, some are not under the law based on what they are doing. Some politician's 10 second sound bite on the news does not constitute a new law.

Tom has got me there. What OUGHT to be done in Chile ( or any other country for that matter ) is very often a different thing from what IS done.

I think Tompkins has been around Chile sufficiently long to walk that fine line. Last time the whole 'throw Tompkins out' thing came up was because they where considering throwing him out for national security concerns regarding the size of his land holdings (Argentina to the sea), which in turn came up because he was criticizing the road through Pumalin. Some sort of potential security threat I could actually see some case being made (perhaps not the best case), over say him simply saying politically inconvenient things about the president in the international press. If embarrassing the president is a crime, her whole cabinet would need to be thrown out ( which does seem to be happening one member at time on a regular basis ).

He rubs someone the wrong way every few years, and then it dies down for a while, and then he rubs someone else the wrong way again for a while.

He managed to tip toe around the military. Tompkins had a fairly decent working relationship with previous administrations, but had a nack for rubbing them the wrong way from time to time too. He will likely survive this administration just fine.

I think politically if they do throw him out they would just end up with an even bigger political mess to try and put a lid on, than they already have. Imagine what Tompkins would be doing if he had no trees to hug. He would sit around and write editorials to the New York times all day about Chile's environmental policies.