Every time I think I understand how the CA-4 agreement works, something different enters the equation. My latest is posted on A42 in the CA-4 forum.
If you have a Nicaragua Citizenship (or are of dual nationality), the law (maybe a regulation) is that you must leave and enter Nicaragua on a Nicaraguan Passport.
You are also the second person in two days to tell me that they did not keep your Nicaraguan Residency Card when they gave you your Citizenship Card (Cedula).
I have citizenship but have never applied for the citizenship cédula (for assorted reasons).
I believe the Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana, CA-4, is now 8+ years old, officially, and 9 years old as a “theory for application” (the description once used in Honduras). In those years, I have probably read 3-4 dozen articles on CA-4 per non-CA visitors/workers/tourists, and seen 100+ forum posts (some via Nicaliving, but most elsewhere, per CA-related forums) outlining what it is and why it does / doesn’t work or is / isn‘t a good thing. Problem is, I don’t believe a single author of any forum, blog, or reply, I have ever seen, has ever cited, in depth or even quoted, the actual agreement. I wonder why that is (this is not mean to be rhetorical). I wonder if it really even is an agreement, by international agreement standards (you know, where the signing parties were serious and actually want people to know what they did and signed). The thing about most international agreements is that evidence of them is as easy as results #1-2 of any half-baked google search. CA-4, pushing a decade later, remains somewhat unique (page #17 of search results if you are lucky, and that is press coverage of what the agreement was supposed to be, as opposed to what it was - which cannot be cited in full?). Hmm, I wonder why. Even if you find evidence of the actual agreement, does that agreement citation answer such questions, as posed here?
Many times I have searched to try and actually find the agreement. I know well that implementation in Central America does not seem to follow the text of the law or agreement but I felt it would be a clue.
I decided to do this exercise once again. As you pointed out, lots of chat but nothing I could find to base it on. The most amusing was what Wikipedia has to say. It says the agreement exists and it has links signed by each country. Follow any of the links and you will be told that each country has signed the agreement and you are pointed back to the page that says nothing.
I really don't care how the agreement works beyond just hoping that each time I cross one of the borders it is not a new adventure. About the only constant has been that, no matter what, El Salvador does not stamp your passport.
stamp the passport either, going north, and coming back from Honduras,, but it's not consistent.
I asked about it, and the clerk said it's in the computer, stamp is not necessary.
They always give me a new white chit upon re-entering the country (even though I have a perfectly good one with plenty of time paperclipped to the face page of my passport,, , and a couple of times now, they have asked to see the receipt for the $12 as I exit the border area.
There was a big PN push earlier in the year, all the borders; one rigorous but polite inspection by a couple of young PN ladies. Now, they just stamp my car permit. Nobody comes out to look at the car now. Maybe it's the cookies, and they all know me.
Going into CR, they NEVER used to look in the car, this time they did (lots of time on their hands, I've never seen it so slow. No one but me in the CR immigration building.).
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
— George Washington