Colombia's independent work visa: ¿Vale la pena?

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Pathetic. When thinking of a one-word summary for it all, that's what comes to mind. No, I'm not referring to the content of this blog — it's not all bad, is it? And no, it's not my assessment of President Duque's administration, although I'm sure some of you would use that particular adjective.

Vis-à-visas: Wrong Way has faced nine Colombian visa applications.

Nein, nein, nein

What is pathetic is the fact that in the space of just seven years I've made nine — yes, nine — visa applications in Colombia. Surely, most other self-respecting individuals would have thrown away the ruana and sombrero vueltiao and said a firm 'adiós' well before this. It's not like I've been on to a winner here, rolling in a bed of pesos, living the high life.

In fact, it could be said this is one of the main reasons why I still stubbornly stay here. I'm able to make the few pesos I've managed to earn since 2012 last longer in this country compared to opting for a 'risky' return to Ireland, the homeland always being the default option. 

Basically, while I await that Universal Basic Income — it's on its way, isn't it? — I can get by on much less in these environs.

That and a feeling that in certain ways I've more independence here, left to my own devices so to put it. 

For sure, the one and only full-time, contracted job I took on from December 2018 to January 2020 put a temporary hold on 'being my own boss', relative as that has always been, but it also helped me build up some funds for the drought periods. And things have been pretty dry from an income perspective for months now. 

Therein lies the problem. The struggle to survive as an independent, a freelancer if you will, coupled with the difficulty of actually trying to stay in Colombia legally as such an 'actor' (no, I'm not referring to my under-appreciated thespian talent).

For me, from 2014 to 2018 getting an independent visa for Colombia was a relatively straightforward affair. These days, it's quite the opposite. In fact, it seems as if La Cancillería — the body in charge of these things — would prefer if no independents applied.

'Oh, we forgot to mention we need this.'

Well, it clearly doesn't mind picking up the study fee one has to pay seeing how on first inspection it makes it seem rather uncomplicated. 

It's only after submitting 'draft one' that you invariably — the many comments on Facebook groups vouch for this — get hit with a host of other requirements, a number of which can take some time to organise. 

Why not mention all these at the beginning so a potential applicant can weigh up all the pros and cons before paying for the study? 

To talk specifically, there is no mention in the initial application of uploading a copy of your Colombian-issued ID (cédula). Nor does it say you must provide proof of health insurance and other social security payments. (If you're a first-time applicant, I take it international health insurance will suffice but as for the other social security payments, I've no idea what's acceptable. Also, what if you're in Colombia but not currently in gainful employment?)

What's more, it explicitly says there is no need to issue a copy of your previous visa if it was issued electronically, as mine certainly was. Surprise, surprise, but in response to my latest application, I was asked for a copy of same. With that, unsurprisingly, the guys at La Cancillería are contradicting themselves.

'What rankles is the constant moving of the goalposts. Also, as it's an online process, it's very difficult to get specifics about the exact requirements for your own application. Replies are generic: 'This isn't acceptable', but there's no reason as to why.'

Here's another sign of regression for the once slick Cancillería system. In all previous applications where additional material was requested — mostly because of perceived document illegibility and/or my mugshot not meeting the specifications — I got an email informing me of this. This time around, nothing. I had to log on to the system to find this out. Whisper it, but it's almost like they didn't want me to know.

On the plus side, it seems that the translation, authentication and legalisation of my degree has been accepted. In May 2018, the last time I applied for an independent visa, this was the stumbling block. I ran out of time/salvoconductos (30-day emergency passes to stay in the country, two-in-a-row being the limit).

However, as far as I'm aware, the Cancillería doesn't provide information on all the steps that are needed for the above. Let me help. 

In the following order, here's what has to be done: 

Get apostilles on both your degree and diploma supplement from the country where you studied; get these translated and signed by an officially recognised translator in Colombia; authenticate the translator's signature at the notary office where he/she is registered; then get these translations legalised — an online process — by the Cancillería. (This is when journalism is your independent activity. For other professions you may have to get your degree validated at the Ministry of Education.)

Unrequited love

While all this may seem like a bitter rant against La Cancillería, I must state I have no issues whatsoever with Colombia tightening its requirements. Needless to say, the visa authority can request from applicants whatever documentation it deems necessary.

What does rankle is what seems like the constant moving of the goalposts with absolutely no prior notice. This and the fact that, as it's a fully online process, it's very difficult to get specifics about the exact requirements for your own application. Replies are generic: 'This isn't acceptable', but there's no reason as to why. Little wonder one loses confidence when it all appears rather arbitrary.

In some ways — again, one can say it's only right — things have gone from one extreme to another. While I never got the benefit of La Cancillería's previous lax approach, I know of a number of foreigners who blatantly stayed in the territory illegally for years and then sweet talked their way to a visa and even residency. Can you imagine Colombians getting the same treatment in Europe or the US? They'd be fined, sent packing and barred from returning for life.

There's also the odd sycophantic influencer who is given citizenship for effectively selling Colombia to the Colombians. A perfect representation of the national insecurity and the-US-knows-best mentality.

Then there are others who try to do things by the book, have given La Cancillería plenty of money over the years through numerous applications and shown their commitment to the country, yet they face new obstacles at every turn.

It brings to mind an Irish phrase from my secondary school days that has stayed with me: Grá éagmhaise, unrequited love. Yes, I truly am the pathetic one in this one-way relationship with Colombian officialdom.

Sad as it is, but perhaps I need La Cancillería to give me the knock-out blow. It might just be doing me a favour.
_____________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Helpful today, harmful tomorrow

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
It's generally accepted that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The distinction, fortunately you might say, only applies to a fraction of humanity.

The majority of us tend to fall somewhere in the middle, for better or for worse.

'Rather than defund the police, let's just destroy them.' 'Great idea!' 

The narrow corridor

That being the case, there's another set of more pertinent opposites where the balance is also quite delicate: the line between being helpful and being harmful. 

One's life, consciously and unconsciously, mentally and physically, is, for the most part, spent traipsing the helpful/harmful middle ground.

But, you might say, being deep in helpful territory is a good place to be, so just try to manoeuvre yourself there. 

Well, the thing is, you can't be deep in it. It's a narrow corridor where you're never too far away from crossing into harmful ground. 

In other words, while you might think that being uberly helpful is nothing but good, there's a high chance you'll end up inflicting harm on not only the recipients of the "kind" act, but on yourself as well. 

It's like the old adage, 'Give a man a fish and he has food for a day, teach a man to fish and he has food for life.' (In this particular instance, the potential trouble for the giver is future resentment from the receiver — 'What?! You've no more fish to give me!' — which could result in conflict.)

Dissecting that saying further, very often it's the short-term help that, if not immediately harmful, ends up leading to even bigger problems down the line.

For a pertinent example in light of the times, take the anti-police, Black Lives Matter protests in the US. Data show that they tend to be accompanied by an increase in civilian-on-civilian homicides in the black communities from which they emanate. 

So go ahead, have less policing, but be prepared for the nasty consequences.

Considering recent events in Bogotá, Colombia would do well to take note — this is not to make little of the many problems with policing and other state law-enforcement agencies in this country.

On a macro level, despite the fact that today most of us can expect to live longer compared to our predecessors, this hasn't resulted in 'playing the long game'. On the contrary, in our on-demand society, it's a case of 'now, now, now'.

'The pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality.'

It makes sense, in some ways. As most of our needs — from a Western world perspective in any case — can be satisfied by the mere touch of a button, many people appear to have lost the virtue of patience. If there's not an instant solution, forget about it. 

So we really only have ourselves to blame when our leaders react accordingly. Any visionaries soon learn that the real trump card (an innocent turn of phrase, honestly) is expediency. Never mind the next election, the latest opinion poll matters just as much.

In these coronavirus times, hope has been expressed that the enforced pause on our "normal" lives will see us taking the time to reflect on how we've been living. We'll identify the more malignant practices and amend them accordingly.

Cruel kindness

Alas, if anything, the pandemic has only reinforced the on-demand way of life and, it can be argued, increased societal polarization, as well as inequality. What's more, it has underscored the short-term "gain", long-term loss tendency.

In the rush to do all that could be done to help those most at risk, very little if any thought appeared to have been given to the unintended consequences. 

Only now, months later, are we seeing some of our leaders finally listening to the dissenting voices who have been at pains to highlight the problems we're creating.

Again, this isn't that shocking when seen through the myopic lens that society as a whole tends to use. 

To use football parlance, we've sacrificed a few playmakers to hold on to a questionable lead. The strategy has backfired, we've been pegged back and we need to go on the offensive. 

However, our star attackers are now out of the game. Most can, thankfully, be reintroduced. The question is, what sort of shape are they in?

When they re-enter the fray, they might be more like madmen than geniuses, more harmful than helpful. The margins, you see, are very tight indeed.

The temptation to choose, innocently perhaps, perceived kindness today, often results in a cruel tomorrow.
___________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Will Javier Ordóñez's death mark a turning point for Colombia?

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'In the same way we condemn police abuse, we also condemn the violence and vandalism carried out by some protesters. Abuse and violence are not solved by more violence.'

So Bogotá Mayor Claudia López tweeted in response to a night of deadly protests across the Colombian capital that left at least nine people dead and saw over 50 police stations as well as a number of city buses and other buildings vandalised and burnt to cinders.

The protests were a reaction to the death of Javier Ordóñez, a 44-year-old unarmed civilian who was pinned to the ground and tasered for over a minute by two police officers on the night of Tuesday, 8th of September.

The incident was filmed by an onlooker and quickly went viral. While the exact details as to why Mr Ordóñez was stopped by the police remain unknown, it is believed he had been drinking in a house with friends and had gone out to get some more alcohol when he was met by the officers.

In the video, he can be heard pleading various times for the tasering to stop but it continues until a couple of other police officers arrive. He's then taken away to a nearby station where he allegedly receives more abuse that eventually leads to his death.

The Minister for Defence's announcing of a full internal investigation did little to quell the growing outrage in a country that tends to have little trust in its police force.

The vigil organised the next day in the neighbourhood where Mr Ordóñez was attacked was replicated across Bogotá, mostly in working-class areas, with the focal point for each being the local police station, small rapid response centres as they are (known as CAI, Centro de Atención Inmediata).

In my own neighbourhood (Verbenal), in the far north of the metropolis, 25 kilometres from where Mr Ordóñez lived, the gathering started off largely peacefully, similar to what happened elsewhere. 

No more than 20 people blocked one lane of traffic outside the police station which was manned by two officers. Banging pots in the trademark cacerolazo non-violent protest, they chanted 'murderers' and other anti-police slogans.

It wasn't long before a group of youths, mostly male, joined. With their arrival, came the use of physical force in the shape of launching stones and other rudimentary missiles at the well-protected police station — these stations were built to survive bomb blasts, so a few stones barely left a mark on the large reinforced windows. 

Nonetheless, the attack turned into a constant barrage as the number of protesters grew significantly, with attempts made to set the building alight.

With similar incidents occurring elsewhere, reinforcements for the stranded pair of police officers were slow to arrive. But arrive they did, about 20 on motorbikes. 

They managed to push back the protesters and secure the station. What ensued was an ugly stand-off with projectiles being fired in both directions amidst the occasional gunshot, which we assume came from the police.

After hours of attack and counter-attack, the outnumbered officers eventually had to abandon the small station, which was later torched.

Mourners surround the temporary shrine in honour of one of the dead protesters.

The net result at this particular stand-off was three dead protesters to add to the other deaths elsewhere in the city.

Mayor López's — Colombia's most vociferous anti-corruption politician who attracts much liberal support — subsequent call for calm and purely peaceful protests has been largely followed bar a few small but no less destructive incidents in some sectors of Bogotá, as well as in a number of other major cities in the country.

The focus is now turning to what kind of police reform, if any, will be forthcoming.

It's fair to say that most Colombians agree that better training is fundamental to changing the force's attitude in a country with a fairly low level of basic education across the  board. 

There's a widespread belief that many officers use unnecessary force far too often. According to official sources, before this week's violence, there were already over 130 reports of police abuse in Bogotá this year alone. The idea that the horrific abuse suffered by Javier Ordóñez was a rare event doesn't wash with many.

Right now, however, with centre-right President Iván Duque from a party that has had as its motto 'mano firme, corazón grande' — 'firm hand, big heart' — there's a concern in more liberal quarters that he and his administration focus too much on the former and very little on the latter.

The family of the late Mr Ordóñez, as well as Mayor López, have spoken of their hope that his death will be the catalyst for meaningful reform of state forces. 

Those who have been following Colombia for years will be forgiven for being less than optimistic of that being realised.

Democrats' Biden time strengthens Trump's card

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]
In January of this strangest of years, unaware of what was coming down the line, I made a couple of what could be seen as rash decisions.

Four more years of President Trump? It looks quite possible now. (Image from Facebook.)

One was to resign from my full-time, relatively well-paid marketing job. I'd had enough and I wanted to focus on some personal, yet financially impotent projects.

Along came corona

The other was to write a piece suggesting that a Donald Trump re-election might be the least-bad option for the United States of America. 

Despite what some doomsayers had predicted when he won his first term in 2016, the world didn't descend into complete chaos. There was no apocalypse, much to the disappointment of some radical leftists. 

What's more, at the time of writing, there appeared to be a real possibility that the Democrats would select a candidate too leftist for the majority of the electorate, thereby playing into Trump's hands.

Then, along came coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter protests. Things certainly did get quite chaotic, apocalyptic even, the world over and particularly so in the Land of Opportunity. 

The mishandling of both was levelled firmly — and understandably if exaggeratedly — at the feet of President Trump. 

It was looking so grim for the incumbent that it seemed the Democrats could put forward Nicolás Maduro — replete in a US tracksuit to entice some jingoistic Republicans to the cause — and still expect to comfortably win November's election.

That fascinating prospect aside, up until recently, the biggest challenge for the challengers had been to ensure that their actual candidate, Joe Biden, stayed alive. The rest would take care of itself.

However, with the conventions of the Big Two now done and dusted, what were considered advantages for the Democrats just a few short weeks ago now appear to be working against them.

Whilst receiving widespread support initially, many US citizens are growing increasingly tired, angered even, by the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests. The Democrats, having fully supported the movement, are struggling to distance themselves from the rioting.

'While the thoughts of a Trump victory are anathema to many, it could be the saving grace for the Democrats, a realisation that lunging left is politically suicidal.'

Trump's playing of the law-and-order-president card appears to be hitting a sweet spot, despite the opposition pointing out, correctly, that the violence is happening under his watch. The thing is, while he is commander-in-chief, he can easily and effectively shift the blame. 

Radical leftists, who are pulling the Democrats' strings, are behind it all. Images of the burning of his effigy by protesters serve to reinforce the point. 

With time and a November endorsement, he will restore calm. A Biden presidency, on the other hand, will do anything but.

The right calls?

The current pandemic will, of course, play a big role in the outcome of the election. 

Yet, despite the relatively high death toll in the US, should employment figures continue to improve ahead of election day, Trump has another positive to play with. 'I had the economy roaring BC (Before Coronavirus), and the signs are it will bounce back quickly under my watch. All you'll get with Sleepy Joe are higher taxes and rising unemployment.' This is sure to resonate with many undecided, centrist voters.

The one, really only, bipartisan issue is the need to deal with a menacing China. 

Again, Trump can point to the hard line he has already taken in this regard. Can a soft-centred Democrat Party with its radical leftist undercurrent really be trusted to play tough with Beijing? It's a pitch that the many doubters may just find too worrying to let slide.

Also, while the thoughts of a Trump victory are anathema to many, it could actually be the saving grace for the Democrats, a realisation that lunging left is politically suicidal. 

By veering back towards the centre, the party would become a far more formidable force for a Republican Party that will have its own soul-searching to do post Trump.

So, as we move into the final quarter of a year that many of us wish we could wipe from memory, my January rashness, despite all that's happened, might actually prove to be rather prudent. 

Getting out of my job when I did may have been the right move. I don't feel worse off mentally in any case. And the US might just decide that it is better to go with 'the devil you know'.

Whatever happens, the closing chapters of 2020 are set to be intriguing.
__________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'God may be dead, but I want to live (for now)'

[Click here for an audio version of this blog entry.]
'Is it possible that he has nothing but cowardice and fear of death to make him live?' So Sonia Marmeládova asked herself about the one she cared for dearly, the murderer Rodion Raskolnikov, in Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic Crime and Punishment.

Houses of god have been off limits recently due to coronavirus restrictions.

Her great worry had been that the immense mental anguish he was suffering as a result of the crime he committed would lead him to suicide. In the end, it didn't.

In God we trust

The thing is, Rodian was an atheist. Had he believed in a god, an afterlife, and was convinced his actions had been for the good of humankind, perhaps he would have been able to end his existence in this world with less of an internal conflict.

It certainly got me thinking: Is it easier for believers to accept death — be that natural or otherwise — than non-believers?

From a suicide perspective, there have been some recent studies in this regard. While there are a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to get a true picture, there are indications that believers at least think about ending their own lives more so than atheists.

On one level, this makes sense. If you are of the conviction that this life is all we've got and all we'll ever have, there is no second chance, no redemption beyond the here and now, then why would you want to end it prematurely? 

No matter how bad your situation may be, as long as you're still breathing, there's a chance you can turn things around.

'It's difficult to comprehend how utterly miserable somebody must feel to decide to end it all. Experiencing ups and downs on the rollercoaster of life is inevitable. The difficult balancing act is trying not to overly focus on either extreme.'

On the other hand, I can only imagine, for those who truly believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or whatever, when things reach a terrible low, opting to roll the die (there's just one!), so to put it, might seem like a viable alternative than struggling on with the status quo. (Of course, against this, suicide is a sin in many religions. Yet so are lots of other things that followers let slide.)

Personally, as somebody indoctrinated into Catholicism at birth and who was an active, enthusiastic participant in it well into my mid-teens, I have often visualised my own death. 

This is not so much in a suicidal way. It is, somewhat narcissistic you could say, more about what my funeral would be like, especially if I were to die relatively young.

A lot of this is probably due to the send-offs we tend to give our dead in Ireland — or how we did pre-covid in any case. 

The deceased takes centre stage for a couple of days, so I'm, um, looking forward — paradoxically considering I don't really believe I'll be able to experience it — to my moment in the spotlight.

To die for

As for taking my own life, well I've never given it any serious thought. (Some may argue that a number of my life choices have been akin to toying with death, but I just call this living within my means.)

A corollary question is, do I fear death? In fairness, it's a concept rather difficult to envisage until one is actually confronted with it. 

What's more, considering all the unknowns surrounding it, most of us probably want to go as swiftly as possible when our number's up or when some illness like dementia takes over our minds. That way, we wouldn't be a burden on either the active living or ourselves.

Outside of that, for one who otherwise would have years to run, it's difficult to comprehend how utterly miserable he/she must feel to decide to end it all. Experiencing ups and downs on the rollercoaster of life is inevitable. The difficult balancing act is trying not to overly focus on either extreme.

Appreciate the mundane, the middle ground, the steady ship. The highs don't last. Reflecting on them too much very often just heralds in the lows. Next thing you know, death comes a-calling, by whatever means.
___________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".