# New residency financial requirements



## Azuledos

We should probably all be aware of the possibility of a drastic rise in the Zona A minimum daily wage, as the mayor is pushing for an increase to MX$80 from the current MX$67.29. This is an increase of nearly 19%, and presumably will affect financial minimum requirements for expat residency. 

Mexico City proposes minimum wage hike to $6 a day | CTV News 

This means one will need to prove a monthly income of almost US$2500, or asset statements showing over US$123,000 at hand over the course of the previous year.


----------



## Longford

Thanks for linking the discussion of the daily minimum wage to fees and/or fines expats and Mexicans are required to pay. The Mayor isn't likely to be successful in his efforts because this is a Federal decision in Mexico and the Mayor is affiliated with a party which lacks political strength in the Mexican Congress to achieve his (laudable, from the standpoint of Mexican workers) goal. 

I do think Mexico has been attempting to _cull the heard _of expats who are what I'll describe as _economic refugees _ from the USA, but the government has not deomonstrated it has the support of its workers to implement policies which will further achieve that. And that's good news for those expats living marginally in Mexico.


----------



## Hound Dog

Ah, Azuledos:

Every time I read of these changes or potential changes in residency rules including the seemingly capricious change a year or so ago that required I turn in my so-called permanent "Inmigrado Card" (obsolete Permanent Residency Card) earlier this year for the newly mandated "Residente Permanente Card", I thank my lucky stars that I became a naturalized Mexican citizen early this year through SRE and, as stated by the SRE people in Guadalajara, never am under the jurisdiction of INM for_ anything _ever again. To each his/her own but the ongoing debate on various expat forums as to the advantages of citizenship has been answered in my case and the cases of all who wish to avoid unforseeable changes in future residency rules. I also got a permanent, lifetime Chiapas driver´s license good until I croak.

The less I have to deal with governmental functionaries anywhere on the globe, the better.

If Longford is right that the Mexican government may be attempting to cull the herd of NOBBER economic refugees heading south to save a centavo or two, that is now fine with me. I know of way too many expat refugees both in Jalisco and Chiapas who exist here on a shoestring with no fallback reserves in case of unpredictable financial woes coming down the pike yet to arrrive. Mexico doesn´t need that potential burden.


----------



## lagoloo

For much the same reasons as Hound Dog, we are in the process of obtaining Mexican Citizenship. I don't see any downside in doing so.
We are not renouncing our U.S. citizenship. That is just another hassle and what's the point? Two passports may be better than one.


----------



## TundraGreen

lagoloo said:


> For much the same reasons as Hound Dog, we are in the process of obtaining Mexican Citizenship. I don't see any downside in doing so.
> We are not renouncing our U.S. citizenship. That is just another hassle and what's the point? Two passports may be better than one.


Agreed. I have about 6 months before I am eligible to apply.


----------



## Isla Verde

TundraGreen said:


> Agreed. I have about 6 months before I am eligible to apply.


Lucky you! I have to wait four more years  .


----------



## mxfan

TundraGreen said:


> Agreed. I have about 6 months before I am eligible to apply.


What it the time requirement? Age or time in country?


----------



## TundraGreen

mxfan said:


> What it the time requirement? Age or time in country?


There are time requirements. For people without a family connection, 5 years in country on one of the more permanent visas (FM-2, inmigrante, inmigrado, residencial permanente) are required. Time on an FM-3, no-inmigrante, or residencial temporal does not count. The only age requirement is to be an adult, i.e. 18 or older.


----------



## sara99

after the reform they said all are welcome to apply for the Mexican nationality - for people who want to stay in mx. 
the requirements for apply you can read in the internet. papers, fee and exam.
the exam... nobody knows the questions, 100% español is obligation in exam. some people say didnt had exam but this seems not to be the rule.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

Hound dog, re your " I know of way too many expat refugees both in Jalisco and Chiapas who exist here on a shoestring with no fallback reserves in case of unpredictable financial woes coming down the pike yet to arrrive. Mexico doesn´t need that potential burden."

Remissions of American dollars to Mexico, mainly by Mexican immigrants in the U.S., has been a vast economic boon to the Mexican economy. Few of those immigrants are able to send down $1,500 American dollars monthly that poorer expats bring in. If the "expat refugees," as you describe them, bring in $1,500, far below the required amount, monthly, believe me, they are not a burden to Mexico. Even $1,000 a month, from I guess the poorest, multiplied many times, is of immense value. They bring in dollars, and though many expats love to fulminate against the dollar, it is still liquid gold in Mexico and most other countries of the world. 

In fact, those refugees you denigrate probably help Mexico far, far more, bringing in dollars, than Westerners living in Mexico as English language teachers, earning more then the refugees, but in pesos printed in Mexico. That can apply to other jobs that Western expats may have as legal residents, which permits them to live in Mexico, but they earn that money in pesos. Not so good.

I think it is nationalism, not rational economic thinking, that has Mexicans wanting to halt the surge in American and Canadian expat retired folk.


----------



## kc5tng

Ive noticed the mention of Social Security as an "Income" - just curious if my 100% VA disability income that is Permanent and Total will be accepted as well as my meager Social Security income, as far as qualifying for temp residency and or permanent residency when that becomes available? My wife and I are seriously considering moving to Cozumel but trying to gather up all the info we can so that we can make an informed decision instead of just hoping all will be good.


----------



## Isla Verde

kc5tng said:


> Ive noticed the mention of Social Security as an "Income" - just curious if my 100% VA disability income that is Permanent and Total will be accepted as well as my meager Social Security income?


As long as you can prove you are receiving a monthly income from your VA benefits, it seems likely that it will be accepted as proof of income by Mexican Immigration.


----------



## joaquinx

kc5tng said:


> Ive noticed the mention of Social Security as an "Income" - just curious if my 100% VA disability income that is Permanent and Total will be accepted as well as my meager Social Security income, as far as qualifying for temp residency and or permanent residency when that becomes available?


Those two sources are what I used to fulfill the income requirements.


----------



## kc5tng

Thats marvelous news. I thougth that might be the case but better to find out for sure from people who know the score. Thanks for the response gentlemen...its apprecdiated.


----------



## Longford

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> I think it is nationalism, not rational economic thinking, that has Mexicans wanting to halt the surge in American and Canadian expat retired folk.


I think you've mixed some apples in with the oranges in the entirety of your response. Remittances are another topic, and an important one for Mexico because they've lessened chances of civil unrest.

As for "economic refugees" (from the USA), Mexico has done what many other countries have done and are doing and that is to establish an income level expats are required to meet to become residents of these particular countries. However, Mexico has been lenient when applying the new regulations to people who've legally and respectfully resided in Mexico previous to the implementation of the new regulations and that's been a good thing. I'm of the opinion that all too many expats are i) living illegally in Mexico, ii) taking advantage of programs designed for use by Mexicans with limited financial means, and iii) probably have few other options due to unfortunate life circumstances.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

Longford said:


> I think you've mixed some apples in with the oranges in the entirety of your response. Remittances are another topic, and an important one for Mexico because they've lessened chances of civil unrest.
> 
> As for "economic refugees" (from the USA), Mexico has done what many other countries have done and are doing and that is to establish an income level expats are required to meet to become residents of these particular countries. However, Mexico has been lenient when applying the new regulations to people who've legally and respectfully resided in Mexico previous to the implementation of the new regulations and that's been a good thing. I'm of the opinion that all too many expats are i) living illegally in Mexico, ii) taking advantage of programs designed for use by Mexicans with limited financial means, and iii) probably have few other options due to unfortunate life circumstances.


I think many Mexicans agree with you, about too many expats living there. But it is all relative. I believe the US gov't says about one million Americans live in Mexico, and it has a population of what, 113 million? That includes legal and illegal, mostly legal, I think. But in the U.S., we have, well, i don't know, tens of millions of Mexicans and people of Mexican heritage, both legal and illegal. What, 40 million of 310 million? I don't know. So, America has many more Mexicans than Mexico has Americans living within its borders. Feelings in the U.S. are both pro and anti-immigrant. I think in Mexico that the feeling, outside the educated business community, is pretty nearly 100 percent against too much American influence. I don't say it's good or bad, it is just there. 

Immigration brings great benefits to both countries. I think, given Mexico's shaky economy, despite its growing strength, needs as many American dollars as it can get, and I think 99percent of American immigrants, legal or no, bring in more dollars than any resources they use, so they are of net benefit, but again, feelings run high.


----------



## TundraGreen

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> …
> But it is all relative. I believe the US gov't says about one million Americans live in Mexico, and it has a population of what, 113 million? That includes legal and illegal, mostly legal, I think.
> …


Just to clarify, most of those one million are children, not retired expats.


----------



## joaquinx

TundraGreen said:


> Just to clarify, most of those one million are children, not retired expats.


I feel that muddied the water a bit more. How are the children cared? That would mean that their caretakers would make up a sizable portion of the 1 million along with the children and not leaving much room for retirees and the employed. There are others besides the retirees such as contract labor and those employed by US businesses.


----------



## GARYJ65

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> I think many Mexicans agree with you, about too many expats living there. But it is all relative. I believe the US gov't says about one million Americans live in Mexico, and it has a population of what, 113 million? That includes legal and illegal, mostly legal, I think. But in the U.S., we have, well, i don't know, tens of millions of Mexicans and people of Mexican heritage, both legal and illegal. What, 40 million of 310 million? I don't know. So, America has many more Mexicans than Mexico has Americans living within its borders. Feelings in the U.S. are both pro and anti-immigrant. I think in Mexico that the feeling, outside the educated business community, is pretty nearly 100 percent against too much American influence. I don't say it's good or bad, it is just there. Immigration brings great benefits to both countries. I think, given Mexico's shaky economy, despite its growing strength, needs as many American dollars as it can get, and I think 99percent of American immigrants, legal or no, bring in more dollars than any resources they use, so they are of net benefit, but again, feelings run high.


Mexico's shaky economy? It might not be the strongest economy in the world, but American economy is not the best one out there, 2008, Lehmann, remember?

And of course immigration is a good thing, generally speaking, otherwise most Mexicans, Americans, or many others would not be living, most of us are here due to Colonies


----------



## TundraGreen

joaquinx said:


> I feel that muddied the water a bit more. How are the children cared? That would mean that their caretakers would make up a sizable portion of the 1 million along with the children and not leaving much room for retirees and the employed. There are others besides the retirees such as contract labor and those employed by US businesses.


Sorry if I muddied the waters. They are mostly children born in the US to Mexican or Mexican-American families who have moved or returned to Mexico. I can't remember the statistics now, but I looked at the last census data and it indicates that something like 500,000 or 750,000 of the US-born individuals now living in Mexico are under the age of 18. The number of adults who have immigrated to Mexico for work or retirement is way less than one million.


----------



## AlanMexicali

Longford said:


> ii) taking advantage of programs designed for use by Mexicans with limited financial means, and iii) probably have few other options due to unfortunate life circumstances.


[Cut]

"Results of the reform: 

From 2000 to 2006, the ratio of per capita public expenditure for people covered by IMSS/ISSSTE to the per capita expenditure for the uninsured declined from 2.5-to-1 to 2-to-1 and is expected to continue falling due to the legislated growth of SP. Furthermore, during the same time period, the ratio in per capita allocations between the state with the largest allocation and the state with the lowest allocation diminished from 5-to-1 to 4-to-1. During this time, the MOH budget increased by 69%, leading to a more equitable distribution of resources between the previously uninsured and those who belonged to the social security institutions.

A recent survey found that satisfaction with the SP is high. Among enrollees, 69% stated that quality of health services was good or very good. Furthermore, 85% of enrollees stated that program benefits were clearly or very clearly explained by officials. Finally, 94% stated that they were treated well during the affiliation process, with 97% of enrollees planning to enroll for the next year. In terms of service usage, families that enroll with SP increase their incidence of health care utilization, particularly in regard to health center visits and hospitalization, while decreasing their usage of private care providers such as private doctors and pharmacies. Thus, the reform program has led to systematic improvements in health care provision for those who had been uninsured prior to the reform."



Seguro Popular | Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage English]



For those that read Spanish this is a good read.

http://www.salud.gob.mx/indicadores1318/pdf/programa.pdf


----------



## Longford

> [Cut]


Certainly, you are entitled to form and express your own opinions. But please don't forget that other contributors are entitled to form and express their opinions as well.


----------



## Hound Dog

_


Meritorious-MasoMenos said:



... those refugees you denigrate probably help Mexico far, far more, bringing in dollars, than Westerners living in Mexico as English language teachers, earning more then the refugees, but in pesos printed in Mexico. That can apply to other jobs that Western expats may have as legal residents, which permits them to live in Mexico, but they earn that money in pesos. Not so good.

I think it is nationalism, not rational economic thinking, that has Mexicans wanting to halt the surge in American and Canadian expat retired folk.

Click to expand...

_Dawg denigrated no one and your opinon that it is nationalism rather than rational economic thinking that is driving the movement to upgrade the quality of resident expats is just that - your opinión and nothing more. While I respect your opinión, in my opinión you are dead wrong and I could not be happier that they are sending expat candidates back to Moline at the border unless they have sufficient funds to come down here as residents under the tightened criteria or as tourists for a limited time only. 

It´s nice that anywhere here in North America, we can all express our opinions freely.

Do not despair those of you incapable of meeting the new financial requirements. There is always rural Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas available to you for residency and these places are actually cheaper as residential candidates than Mexico these days and you will qualify for Medicare as well when of age. Not only that, these states have no authority to preclude your moving there if you áre a U.S. citizen and in Louisiana at least, the food is pretty good..


----------



## lagoloo

Most first world countries have stringent entry requirements, so what's new? Mexico's aren't bad at all. Just my opinion, but living on the cheap isn't a very good reason to move to a foreign country. It's not a bad reason, and combined with a good attitude and willingness to go along with the culture rather than try to change it or constantly complain about it can result in a welcome, though not so well off, immigrant.
What the Dawg says about there being places to live in the U.S. that are just as cheap, if not cheaper than Mexico is probably true, but some of those are a "foreign" culture as well, and would be hard to accept. I'm trying to imagine an old West Coast leftie counterculture type living in the heart of right wing red states and shudder. LOL.

As far as the notion of expats taking advantage of health care in Mexico is concerned, it's probably a drop in the bucket re cost. My bad list consists of people who don't sign up for ANY insurance and expect others to have a fund raiser to pay for their medical care. The bums.


----------



## Isla Verde

lagoloo said:


> Most first world countries have stringent entry requirements, so what's new? Mexico's aren't bad at all. Just my opinion, but living on the cheap isn't a very good reason to move to a foreign country. It's not a bad reason, and combined with a good attitude and willingness to go along with the culture rather than try to change it or constantly complain about it can result in a welcome, though not so well off, immigrant.


I wonder what percentage of expats in Mexico who have moved here mostly because of the cheaper cost of living (and not because they have any great interest in Mexico) end up staying?


----------



## lagoloo

Isla Verde said:


> I wonder what percentage of expats in Mexico who have moved here mostly because of the cheaper cost of living (and not because they have any great interest in Mexico) end up staying?


That's a question to which you'll probably get few honest answers. We have made some guesses among people we know who no doubt fall into that group, but what's interesting is that it's "relative", in that they simply couldn't maintain the lifestyle they had in their working years, in some of the more expensive parts of the U.S.; for instance, the San Francisco Bay area. One of the couples I'm thinking of is actually quite well off and they are staying here after ten years of living in Mexico.
Others I "know of" would never have admitted it publicly and claimed they moved here for other reasons, but it wasn't had to figure out that they couldn't qualify under the new financials and quietly moved back to the U.S. without saying why. They hadn't lived here long.

The saddest group were those who never followed the path to easy "permanente" status because they didn't want to give up their foreign plated cars and discovered too late that they couldn't qualify under the new rules and didn't really want to leave, either.
In most cases, we'll never know the real reasons people have for doing what they do.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

Hound Dog said:


> Dawg denigrated no one and your opinon that it is nationalism rather than rational economic thinking that is driving the movement to upgrade the quality of resident expats is just that - your opinión and nothing more. While I respect your opinión, in my opinión you are dead wrong and I could not be happier that they are sending expat candidates back to Moline at the border unless they have sufficient funds to come down here as residents under the tightened criteria or as tourists for a limited time only.
> 
> It´s nice that anywhere here in North America, we can all express our opinions freely.
> 
> Do not despair those of you incapable of meeting the new financial requirements. There is always rural Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas available to you for residency and these places are actually cheaper as residential candidates than Mexico these days and you will qualify for Medicare as well when of age. Not only that, these states have no authority to preclude your moving there if you áre a U.S. citizen and in Louisiana at least, the food is pretty good..


You're pretty funny. Maybe Mississippi ought to start a PR campaign to run on TV in rest of country: "If you can't afford Mexico, come on down to Biloxi! Warm weather, plus Medicare!" I think you ought to hire yourself yourself out to the Mississippi Public Affairs Office, if one exists.

But as for your contempt of low income Americans, I have failed to make my point clear. Mexico has no welfare system. Mexico has no universal health care system for the poor, aka hospital emergency rooms. Millions and millions of immigrants, legal or no, go to the U.S. with the intention of working and bettering themselves, generally (When I lived in Manhattan a while ago, I was friends with Dominicans who had a set system of 1. moving to Puerto Rico to get a false ID there; fly freely into New York; apply for welfare and get a free apartment) but with a system in place that will take care of them.

Now, Americans who come to Mexico with only a $1,000 or $1,500 a month, not enough to make the official retirement visa and too poor for you, do not take advantage of Mexican social services. They pay their own way, with dollars brought in from America. While it may be trifling to you, they do add a lot to the Mexican economy by bringing in dollars. They are not a net drain. And, as I pointed out, Americans living in Mexico, as opposed to tourists, are a drop in the bucket compared to Mexicans living in the U.S., and unlike some, not the majority, are never a drain on U.S. resources.

So, it is my opinion that it is nationalism, not concern over those Americans being a drain, because as I pointed out, they aren't a drain on Mexico, unless you can point out how. Mexicans don't have to build schools for their children as Americans must do for immigrants, they don't have to build hospitals for them, as Americans must do for immigrants, they don't have to build housing for them, as Americans must do for immigrants (and all of these might be an overall positive for America, of course, bringing in new blood, and causing a lot of economic activity now). So, Mexico doesn't, unless you can point out how I am wrong, expend anything for these relatively small number of aged immigrants. What numbers of the million? I have no idea. What percentage can't meet that relatively low monthly income? 100,000 out of the million? I have no idea.

Let's just drop it, I'd say. If you can think of an economic cost to Mexico of these low income Americans living on less than $2,000 a month, all brought in from the US and Canada, okay. Rather than an economic burden, I'd say over the years, Mexicans weekending in San Miguel or Lake Chapala have looked around and said, "You know, this would be a nice place, but there's too many gringos here." Mexicans don't write their congressmen. They talk to power brokers at social gatherings.


----------



## Longford

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> Mexicans don't have to build schools for their children as Americans must do for immigrants, they don't have to build hospitals for them, as Americans must do for immigrants, they don't have to build housing for them, as Americans must do for immigrants


Where is it in the USA that these things were required to be constructed?



Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> Let's just drop it, I'd say. If you can think of an economic cost to Mexico of these low income Americans living on less than $2,000 a month, all brought in from the US and Canada, okay.


Well, Mexico has determined it doesn't want new expat residents who don't meet a certain financial criteria ... for whatever reason. Why has it done that?



Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> Rather than an economic burden, I'd say over the years, Mexicans weekending in San Miguel or Lake Chapala have looked around and said, "You know, this would be a nice place, but there's too many gringos here." Mexicans don't write their congressmen. They talk to power brokers at social gatherings.


My experience with the Lakeside communities isn't very deep, so I won't comment about life there. But as for San Miguel de Allende: expats who live or vacation/visit there is a very small percentage of the city/town population and also a small percentage of people who visit there. Without a doubt it's a Mexican community some/many expats have come to enjoy. Mexicans don't fear they're loosing-out on something.


----------



## Rwrobb

*Visiting not Living in Mexico*

Do you think they will have a rule that states, even for a 180 day stay that there will be a certain amount of monies required to be able to visit for that time period?


----------



## TundraGreen

Rwrobb said:


> Do you think they will have a rule that states, even for a 180 day stay that there will be a certain amount of monies required to be able to visit for that time period?


No one can predict the future, but in the past there has been no income requirement to visit as a tourist for up to 180 days.


----------



## Rwrobb

Thank you, I can see them asking to see a return ticket and maybe proof of income in the future.


----------



## Longford

Rwrobb said:


> Do you think they will have a rule that states, even for a 180 day stay that there will be a certain amount of monies required to be able to visit for that time period?


If you're asking from the standpoint of a tourist, visiting for _tourism_ purposes ... as contrasted with someone who _resides_ in Mexico under the 180-day time limitation ... I don't think there will be any entry requirements regarding monies any time soon. However, I do know that when persons have, previously, been allocated less than 180-days to travel about the country as a tourist and they requested an extension ... INM has, at some of its offices, required proof/evidence of solvency to cover the additional days asked for and an outbound plane ticket, etc.


----------



## lagoloo

Wait a sec: the Mexican healthcare system includes both IMSS and Seguro Popular, which are available to expats at a very low cost, primarily paid for by the government.

So many expats in the Lake Chapala area use IMSS coverage that they have two "facilitators" who set up a table on the grounds of the Lake Chapala Society once or twice a week, year around. The facilitators make money signing up the expats.

Of course expats are using the healthcare provided. And of course, elderly people require more drugs, hospital care and doctor visits than their younger Mexican neighbors. Well off expats buy their own private health insurance so they can use private hospitals when they need them.

I don't know whether poorer expats bring more to the economy than they cost, and if anyone has a legit study on the subject, it would be useful.

IMO, we should check out the FACTS when making our arguments.


----------



## Rwrobb

Longford said:


> If you're asking from the standpoint of a tourist, visiting for _tourism_ purposes ... as contrasted with someone who _resides_ in Mexico under the 180-day time limitation ... I don't think there will be any entry requirements regarding monies any time soon. However, I do know that when persons have, previously, been allocated less than 180-days to travel about the country as a tourist and they requested an extension ... INM has, at some of its offices, required proof/evidence of solvency to cover the additional days asked for and an outbound plane ticket, etc.


Thx Longford, I guess the best thing is to make sure you have all the necessary paperwork if you plan on a stay of 180 days.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

lagoloo said:


> Wait a sec: the Mexican healthcare system includes both IMSS and Seguro Popular, which are available to expats at a very low cost, primarily paid for by the government.
> 
> So many expats in the Lake Chapala area use IMSS coverage that they have two "facilitators" to interface with expats who set up a table on the grounds of the Lake Chapala Society once or twice a week, year around.
> 
> Of course expats are using the healthcare provided. And of course, elderly people require more drugs, hospital care and doctor visits than their younger Mexican neighbors. Well off expats buy their own private health insurance so they can use private hospitals when they need them.
> 
> IMO, we should stick to FACTS when making our arguments.


Those are legal expats, right? Folks who stay on tourist visa, leaving every three months, can't get it, right? We're talking about them?


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

Longford, re your: "here is it in the USA that these things were required to be constructed?" Well, have you lived in any area that has a lot of children? My goodness. I lived in northern Virginia for 20 years. We were overwhelmed with immigrant children during that period. When we moved to Prince William County, just south of Fairfax county, the mix was almost totally black and white only. We had young children who we put in their public schools. Now, my children are Mexican born U.S. citizens so maybe they were forerunners, but with the surge of "temporary" visas given to tens of thousands of Central Americans for "temporary" political asylum and hurricanes and what not, we read, and went to county meetings, where town and school officials moaned and complained and asked for more funds to build school after school and then new hospital buildings for both the "economic refugees from America," folks who worked in DC or Fairfax but were coming to Prince William for lower priced houses, and immigrants. Now, since my wife is Mexican and she was a social worker in the county, her caseload shot up 10 times with Hispanic immigrants, nearly all illegal. The county had maybe ten schools when we arrived and about 30 now.

Guess what. In July, the federal gov't told the Prince William County school system (in the Washington Post if you want to search for it), Hey, we're sending you 1,500 Hispanic children from the "children's migration" of earlier this year, to start school this September. Get ready for them."

They all of course are getting housing, health care, stipends, the whole shebang. Their entire families, of course. I worked in this period in Fairfax County and DC and of course, in that area, you're always roaming around Maryland as well, in that horribly named phrase I never use, the DMC, but it is one region, and also New York City/New England. New York is of course one of those no questions asked cities, and people born in the US became a minority in New York early in this century. Again, for migrants, they had build dozens of schools, hospital expansions, and the gov't forced all of the realty companies to build extensive housing for the poor whenever they put up their millionaire sky scrapers.

Miami, I know Miami, and well, again, I can exist wonderfully in Miami because I speak Spanish, and believe me, outside the tourist areas, Spanish is the main language. Enough said. Half the state moved to the northern part of Florida. 

Again, you have never heard of this? Since the Edward Kennedy-led immigration reforms of the late 1960s, America has welcomed tens of millions of immigrants legally and who knows how many illegally. They have transformed the country, but of course, schools, hospitals and housing, and medical care, have had to be built for them. I'm an international sort person, well at home with people from all over. This was all second nature. Everyone I know knows about immigration and at least some of its many effects. I mean, well, Texas already has 40% Hispanics, right? That is why Dems are hoping to elect a governor this fall. All of this occurred in the past 30 years, mainly. Texas had to build a vast new school, hospital, housing and medical system (though of course Dems say the latter is inadequate for the poor) to accommodate this huge surge in immigration. Do people think we just crowded them all into existing structures?


----------



## lagoloo

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> Those are legal expats, right? Folks who stay on tourist visa, leaving every three months, can't get it, right? We're talking about them?


We are talking about people who have a visa for more than 180 days, not three months. Legal residents, at least on the equivalent of an FM3.As in, legal expats. Why would there be any question about that?


----------



## Isla Verde

lagoloo said:


> We are talking about people who have a visa for more than 180 days, not three months. Legal residents, at least on the equivalent of an FM3.As in, legal expats. Why would there be any question about that?


Just to make things clear: a tourist visa is good for 180 days. Anyone in Mexico on a tourist visa is not eligible to sign up for the Mexican government health insurance, whether it be Seguro Popular or IMSS. Anyone living here on a residence visa is eligible to sign up for them, at least in most places.


----------



## AlanMexicali

Isla Verde said:


> Just to make things clear: a tourist visa is good for 180 days. Anyone in Mexico on a tourist visa is not eligible to sign up for the Mexican government health insurance, whether it be Seguro Popular or IMSS. Anyone living here on a residence visa is eligible to sign up for them, at least in most places.


Seguro Popular will not allow tourists to join permanently but will take anyone in a life threatening emegrency for 90 days without residency in Mexico and treat them.


----------



## Isla Verde

AlanMexicali said:


> Seguro Popular will not allow tourists to join permanently but will take anyone in a life threatening emegrency for 90 days without residency in Mexico and treat them.


Interesting. Will they be treated for free?


----------



## AlanMexicali

Isla Verde said:


> Interesting. Will they be treated for free?


For free I don´t know, but probably could find out.


----------



## Longford

Meritorious-MasoMenos said:


> Longford, re your: "here is it in the USA that these things were required to be constructed?" Well, have you lived in any area that has a lot of children?


Maybe your experience in VA is different than what I witness or learn about in the rest of the country. That's possible.  However, as for your representations regarding the rest of the country ... we see things very differently. :wave:


----------



## RVGRINGO

“IMSS ladies at LCS“
NO, NO, they are not from IMSS. One of them may have once worked for IMSS, but they are independent individuals who charge a fee for facilitation. They are not part of IMSS.


----------



## chicois8

Masomenos states "I mean, well, Texas already has 40% Hispanics, right?"
And since texas used to be part of Mexico I bet the Mexicans are saying
" Texas is already 60% ******,right?"

And be careful of slamming the Demos, after all it was George Bush who 
signed this immigration bill onto effect just before he left office...


----------



## AlanMexicali

chicois8 said:


> Masomenos states "I mean, well, Texas already has 40% Hispanics, right?"
> And since texas used to be part of Mexico I bet the Mexicans are saying
> " Texas is already 60% ******,right?"
> 
> And be careful of slamming the Demos, after all it was George Bush who
> signed this immigration bill onto effect just before he left office...


Ronald Reagan [Rep.] signed the last big one that came into effect in 1986.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

AlanMexicali said:


> Seguro Popular will not allow tourists to join permanently but will take anyone in a life threatening emegrency for 90 days without residency in Mexico and treat them.


Ok, I am correct, then. Some posters pointed out that low income expats, who have less than $2,000 per month in income, (I think we're talking about mainly Canadians and U.S.) are a drag on Mexico. I only said that these people are NOT an economic drain, because all of their income comes from outside Mexico, and they bring in needed hard currency, U.S, and Canadian dollars. Some posters described the drain as coming from their use of Mexican universal health care for legal residents. I said not as far as I know.

Therefore, these low income expats (and some posters did denigrate them) are NOT a drain on Mexico financially, unless someone can explain how, if all of their income comes from outside the country. BUT, no where did I say that Mexico can't exclude them if it wants. It's their country.

I'm sure there are some expats begging somewhere in Mexico, about the only way I can see them leeching off the country. But again, there are only about one million U.S. expats in Mexico, with the overwhelming majority solvent. Mostly retired, they also don't put any strain on Mexico's education system, or housing, with such low numbers, as opposed to the huge migrant numbers into the U.S., I said.


----------



## lagoloo

"Some posters described the drain as coming from their use of Mexican universal health care for legal residents. I said not as far as I know." 

So it's all right to ignore that issue? Facts, please, if you are going to make that kind of statement.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

lagoloo said:


> "Some posters described the drain as coming from their use of Mexican universal health care for legal residents. I said not as far as I know."
> 
> So it's all right to ignore that issue? Facts, please, if you are going to make that kind of statement.


I have absolutely no idea what issue I'm ignoring, if you're referring to anything I wrote. But at this stage, I think we should bring this particular sub-thread to a close. If you want to make clear what you think I'm ignoring, I'll be glad to engage. Otherwise, the fin.


----------



## lagoloo

Oh please. The issue is about usage of the Mexican health care system by expats.


----------



## chicois8

Oh, I thought the OP asked about "New residency financial requirements "

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/mexico-city-proposes-minimum-wage-hike-to-6-a-day-1.1956529

If the mayor of MC gets his way what do you think it will do to requirements for future ex-pats????


----------



## lagoloo

(I was referring only to the "issue" Meritorious Masomenos was ignoring, not to the topic in general. ) I would be interested to see some figures re expats' impact on the health care finances, if such figures are available. 

Yes, agreed, that if the minimum wage climbs, requirements for expats will, too. Potential expats may need to look to other countries. Whether this is a wise move on the part of the Mexican government is highly debatable, as this thread shows.


----------



## TundraGreen

lagoloo said:


> (I was referring only to the "issue" Meritorious Masomenos was ignoring, not to the topic in general. ) I would be interested to see some figures re expats' impact on the health care finances, if such figures are available.
> 
> Yes, agreed, that if the minimum wage climbs, requirements for expats will, too. Potential expats may need to look to other countries. Whether this is a wise move on the part of the Mexican government is highly debatable, as this thread shows.


As you undoubtedly realize, but maybe not everyone, the requirements for expats, both monthly and asset, are stated as a multiple of the minimum daily wage in Mexico City, so clearly they will go up together.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

lagoloo said:


> Oh please. The issue is about usage of the Mexican health care system by expats.


No, no, some posters said they were very happy that low income expats were being excluded from Mexico because the posters said they were an economic drain on Mexico.

I pointed out at first, that even low income expats bring in all their funds, very valuable Canadian and U.S. dollars.

Then someone said, but yeah, these low income expats use Mex health care, etc.

Then I said, if they can't become legal residents, they can't use Mexican health care system. 

Throughout, I've said Mexican govt has the right to exclude whatever foreigners they want.

I think some wealthy expats who were disparaging these low income expats couldn't conceive that Mexicans might resent them, and were made uncomfortable by my arguments, which is that Mexicans are uneasy by any expats, and that includes the wealthy ones.


----------



## AlanMexicali

TundraGreen said:


> As you undoubtedly realize, but maybe not everyone, the requirements for expats, both monthly and asset, are stated as a multiple of the minimum daily wage in Mexico City, so clearly they will go up together.


The SEGOB INM rules state that to show financial solvency for a Retiree Residente Temporal visa a first timer must show monthly deposits of 400 times the Mexico City daily wage. 

So it is now around $5.00 US acccording to the article the OP posted. 400 X $5 US = $2,000 US.

If the daily minumum wage in Mexico City is raised to $6.00 as the article stated the Mayor is wanting to do that will be 400 X $6.00 US = $2,400 US monthly deposits. A $400.00 US increase.


----------



## Hound Dog

_


Meritorious-MasoMenos said:



No, no, some posters said they were very happy that low income expats were being excluded from Mexico because the posters said they were an economic drain on Mexico.

I pointed out at first, that even low income expats bring in all their funds, very valuable Canadian and U.S. dollars.

Then someone said, but yeah, these low income expats use Mex health care, etc.

Then I said, if they can't become legal residents, they can't use Mexican health care system. 

Throughout, I've said Mexican govt has the right to exclude whatever foreigners they want.
*
I think some wealthy expats who were disparaging these low income expats couldn't conceive that Mexicans might resent them, and were made uncomfortable by my arguments, which is that Mexicans are uneasy by any expats, and that includes the wealthy ones.*

Click to expand...

_

I have seen this phenomenon of both the wealthy and poor moving into popular tourist/retirement/economically marginal áreas in two separate parts of the United States and the notion posited by MMM that both the wealthy and poverty stricken immigrants are resented is both correct and not limited to Mexico.

For many years, I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and worked in the Pacific Northwest periodically, mostly in Seattle, Portland and Eugene. Northwesterners deeply resented financially privileged Californians moving into their rain forests and plains and driving the cost of housing through the roof compared to local real estate prices as determined by local demand among the rusticos as unaffected by outside phenomena. Many also resented poor migrant labor, both legal and illegal, burdening, in their estimation, social services and driving up the costs of caring for the families of those less fortunate but constituting a necessary labor pool to pick those Washington State apples among other crops.

This trend of outsiders both relatively wealthy and relatively poor, immigrating to a región and thereby drivng up living costs and social services burdens, was strongly felt along Dawg´s native Alabama Gulf Coast starting in the 1970s where beach and bay front housing had traditionally been inexpensive and respectful of the coastal environment for generations until snowbirds from the U.S. Midwest and Canada discovered those pristine beaches with a mild and pleasant climate and warm, clear and often placid seas available at very reasonable prices and moved down from the tundra in groves, inducing developers to build massive beachfront high-rise condominium developments and driving up beachfront housing beyond the financial capacity of locals hoping to retire in a small beachfront cottage in these splendid environments. No question that this influx of interlopers was a tremendous boon to merchants and service providers along the coast but there is the other side of the coin. Had Dawg desired to retire there at the beach on a shoestring as had been possible before the incremental demand caused by the influx of tourists and retireees seeking housing in paradise, I would have had to settle for a cottage in the swamps along the bayou backcountry and wrestled alligators, wáter mocassins and giant flying cockroaches for residential priority. About this time there was also an influx of large numbers of Vietnamese migrant fishermen and the usual influx of poor mostly Latin American farm workers required to care for and harvest crops in the inland rich agricultural región immediately up from the coast and, at least in some cases, this influx caused social services burdens to increase or, at least, that was the perception among many and, as we all know, perception is everything.

To relate these trends in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S. Gulf Coast to Mexico, of course there is this love/hate/envy confusión among locals as many merchants and service providers thrive but housing costs and costs of living increase incrementally because these foreigners bring their own perspectives and financial advantages and are willing to pay far more for housng and food and other basics than can most locals. I can tell the reader, as we live at Lake Chapala with its large expat colony - some relatively rich and some quite poor - and the Chiapas Highlands with only a small expat colony but a huge influx of countless desperately poor legal and illegal Central Americans trying to escape poverty and violence in their homelands and seeking marginal employment in Southern Mexico or a ride on "The Beast" to the U.S., that, whether one is a native resident of a Mexican or U. S. (or European or African, etc.) town where economic anomalies abound because of an influx of migrants whether rich or poor, there are always mixed feeling of elation among some who may profit from these demographic changes and desperation among others perhaps priced out of the market. That´s the way it is. The human condition.

By the way, the outrageous increases in property values in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and the Alabama coast which áreas I had designated as possible retirement havens, is what prompted us to first contemplate Latin America as an alternative, finally settling on Mexico. After 13 years of living here in the Jaliscco and Chiapas Highlands, we thank our lucky stars we´re not in Tucson, Santa Fe or Dauphin Island at the mouth of Mobile Bay and for a lot more reasons than simply the cost of living.


----------



## Isla Verde

I doubt if the Mayor of Mexico City gives a damn if increasing the now miserably low minimum wage will affect which foreigners will be able to move to Mexico.


----------



## ojosazules11

Maybe I've misread the thread, but It seems that different posts are referring to 2 different groups of expats and arguing at cross purposes.

In terms of expats who could conceivably become beneficiaries of Mexico's social services if they gain residency status, these are the ones who have to show adequate financial means to be given residency. As some have pointed out, it makes sense for Mexico to try to ensure new immigrants will be able to look after themselves financially and not become a "burden" on the state.

Others have argued that those who essentially live here, but without the benefit of official residency status, are not eligible for social benefits. Therefore whatever amount they spend in Mexico - a fortune or a pittance - is of net economic benefit to the country. Of course, this group has to leave and re-enter Mexico every 180 days.

In other posts it has been debated if it is legal to be living in Mexico on serial tourist permits. A few of us have spoken directly with immigration/border officials who have indicated this is not illegal. With everything computerized, they can see exactly when someone has entered in the past. I remember a Mexican official telling me 29 years ago (almost to the date) "Somos tontos pero no tanto." They can figure out what's going on if someone is re-entering every 180 days, and if they want to put a stop to that, they are well within their rights to do so. It sounds like that is not currently happening on a regular basis. In some cases they give shorter permit times, but then the expat can go to Immigration to extend it.

I would be really surprised if Mexico requests proof of finances for a tourist permit. I'm sure the number of people entering as tourists who are actually living there is a very small fraction of the total number of tourists entering Mexico daily. If tourists have to present financial statements to be allowed into Mexico, that would likely make many tourists choose an alternate destination - especially those who are just coming for the beach. I would find it intrusive, personally. If I'm applying for residency that's a different story and of course I would provide whatever is required. Even showing a return ticket is not always feasible. If travelling down for a few months, I may go down on a one-way ticket and look for good prices on the return ticket closer to my return date. Also many enter by land, so no way to prove when they'll be leaving.

In short, I don't see a real contradiction between the two sides of the debate on this thread. Those who don't meet the financial requirements will not be costing Mexico in terms of state-financed benefits, and any dollars/pesos spent are of benefit. Those who will become eligible for benefits as residents have to provide proof of a specific income level or assets. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Longford

ojosazules11 said:


> In terms of expats who could conceivably become beneficiaries of Mexico's social services if they gain residency status, these are the ones who have to show adequate financial means to be given residency. As some have pointed out, it makes sense for Mexico to try to ensure new immigrants will be able to look after themselves financially and not become a "burden" on the state.[/QUOTE|
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ojosazules11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others have argued that those who essentially live here, but without the benefit of official residency status, are not eligible for social benefits. Therefore whatever amount they spend in Mexico - a fortune or a pittance - is of net economic benefit to the country. Of course, this group has to leave and re-enter Mexico every 180 days.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a different opinion regarding some of what you've said. Expats who _reside_ in Mexico, as contrasted with foreigners who are tourists in Mexico for an extended period of time, are supposed to comply with the requirements to obtain a residency visa. "Border runs" aren't appropriate for the residents.
> 
> 
> 
> ojosazules11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other posts it has been debated if it is legal to be living in Mexico on serial tourist permits. A few of us have spoken directly with immigration/border officials who have indicated this is not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe it's crystal clear that expats who establish residency in Mexico are expected to apply for and obtain a visa in a category which allows that. Doing so on permission intended for tourists or short-term visits is, obviously, doing so in contravention of the regulations no matter other advice given.
> 
> 
> 
> ojosazules11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be really surprised if Mexico requests proof of finances for a tourist permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. However, if it becomes evident or acknowledged that too many expats are skirting the regulations and establishing residency in Mexico under the guise of being "tourists", the government may start tightening the "noose" and impose additional requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> ojosazules11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who don't meet the financial requirements will not be costing Mexico in terms of state-financed benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that statement to be inaccurate.
Click to expand...


----------



## ojosazules11

Longford said:


> I know that statement to be inaccurate.


Please clarify how this is inaccurate, as my statement _Those who don't meet the financial requirements will not be costing Mexico in terms of state-financed benefits_ was in reference to ex-pats who do not have official residency status. As non-residents, they are ineligible for state benefits.

There is a saying, _Dale la burra al trigo_ (or _Vuelve la burra al trigo_) in reference to discussions when people keep going back to the same arguments over and over. I think this thread has already wandered into that territory. 

Nevertheless, at risk of being that _burra_, I see a difference between expats who are residents of Mexico, and those who live there part or most of the year on visitors permits. The former have specific rights, including access to state benefits, so it makes sense they need to show financial solvency.

The latter don't have such rights, so even if not wealthy, as MMM has pointed out the dollars they bring into Mexico are of benefit. They do help pay for infrastructure as well, by paying the toll roads, rent, taxes if they own a home, etc. Of course they don't have any absolute right or guarantee that next time they leave and re-enter, they will be allowed back in. That is solely at the discretion of the border agent.

Given the fact that people are routinely let back in on serial visitor permits seems to indicate that Mexican Immigration authorities continue to have a different interpretation of the law than you do. You state that this is in "contravention of the regulations", but I have yet to see a regulation which states that a person is only allowed a single 180 day permit per year. If that were the case, I'm confident border agents would be enforcing said regulation.

It seems to me Mexico has hit on a perfect solution: for those who will acquire rights to state benefits (residents), make sure they have adequate income/assets to support themselves. For those who don't meet the financial benchmarks, let them come in as long-term "visitors" with the requirement to leave every 180 days, and they're on their own financially.


----------



## Longford

ojosazules11 said:


> Please clarify how this is inaccurate, as my statement _Those who don't meet the financial requirements will not be costing Mexico in terms of state-financed benefits_ was in reference to ex-pats who do not have official residency status. As non-residents, they are ineligible for state benefits.


I've known expats who live in Mexico, reside for years in Mexico ... and who take advantage of as many government-sponsored/provided programs as they can get away with. Including community medical programs, as an example. 



> Given the fact that people are routinely let back in on serial visitor permits seems to indicate that Mexican Immigration authorities continue to have a different interpretation of the law than you do.


The regulations approved a couple of years ago are clear on this point, as to the requirements placed upon expats seeking to reside in Mexico.


----------



## ojosazules11

Longford said:


> The regulations approved a couple of years ago are clear on this point, as to the requirements placed upon expats seeking to reside in Mexico.


 Then why are the border agents not applying the regulations as per your interpretation of them?

_(Dale la burra ... )_


----------



## Longford

ojosazules11 said:


> Then why are the border agents not applying the regulations as per your interpretation of them?


The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it. The ultimate answer would probably come from one of the INM regional offices (or the national office) when an expat presents him/herself and says: "I live in Mexico and I intend to continue living in Mexico for the foreseeable future. I have been living in Mexico with permission granted for a short-term and/or for tourism purposes and I do not want to apply for a visa in one of the expat residencey categories because I cannot meet the requirements. My 'not to exceed 180 days' permission is expiring and I would like you to give me another n/t/e 180-days; and I'll return at the end of that period for another, etc." I will be interested in learning the response the expat receives.


----------



## ojosazules11

Longford said:


> The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it. The ultimate answer would probably come from one of the INM regional offices (or the national office) when an expat presents him/herself and says: "I live in Mexico and I intend to continue living in Mexico for the foreseeable future. I have been living in Mexico with permission granted for a short-term and/or for tourism purposes and I do not want to apply for a visa in one of the expat residencey categories because I cannot meet the requirements. My 'not to exceed 180 days' permission is expiring and I would like you to give me another n/t/e 180-days; and I'll return at the end of that period for another, etc." I will be interested in learning the response the expat receives.


I believe it was Tundra Green who stated he was at a meeting with a regional INM official who stated that leaving and returning every 180 was a legitimate way for expats who do not hold a residence permit to live in Mexico on a longer term basis. Do I have that right, Tundra?

The border agent at the Mexico City airport whom I asked precisely about this issue also said they can clearly see in their system that someone is essentially living in Mexico when they leave and return every 180 days. He also said that this is not against the law. 

Fortunately, Mexican immigration officis/border agents are the ones interpreting and applying the regulations, not any of us on the forum.

This _burra_ is getting out of the trigo now.😊


----------



## AlanMexicali

ojosazules11 said:


> I believe it was Tundra Green who stated he was at a meeting with a regional INM official who stated that leaving and returning every 180 was a legitimate way for expats who do not hold a residence permit to live in Mexico on a longer term basis. Do I have that right, Tundra?
> 
> The border agent at the Mexico City airport whom I asked precisely about this issue also said they can clearly see in their system that someone is essentially living in Mexico when they leave and return every 180 days. He also said that this is not against the law.
> 
> Fortunately, Mexican immigration officis/border agents are the ones interpreting and applying the regulations, not any of us on the forum.
> 
> This _burra_ is getting out of the trigo now.


The rules for processing a tourist FMM are stated as such: (parahrased) The officer on duty has the authority to ask for a foreigner´s passport, financial assets for the stay or visit, ask for confirmation of a destination/s or if wanted an address/es of the visitor while in Mexico and purpose of their entry into the national territory and can grant a tourist FMM UP TO 180 days. No where does it state UP TO 180 days in a 12 month period in any rules or the 2012 INM law. 

In other words the INM officer on duty is authorized to give to any foriegner he/she choses a FMM tourist permit for as many days as he/she likes [máximum UP TO 180 days] as many times a year as he/ she likes and is following the rules and the 2102 INM laws. No INM rule or 2012 law states otherwise.


----------



## TundraGreen

ojosazules11 said:


> I believe it was Tundra Green who stated he was at a meeting with a regional INM official who stated that leaving and returning every 180 was a legitimate way for expats who do not hold a residence permit to live in Mexico on a longer term basis. Do I have that right, Tundra?
> 
> The border agent at the Mexico City airport whom I asked precisely about this issue also said they can clearly see in their system that someone is essentially living in Mexico when they leave and return every 180 days. He also said that this is not against the law.
> 
> Fortunately, Mexican immigration officis/border agents are the ones interpreting and applying the regulations, not any of us on the forum.
> 
> This _burra_ is getting out of the trigo now.😊


You have it right. It was an informational meeting after the most recent big change in the regulations. A representative of INM was asked exactly that question and responded that INM had no objections to individuals receiving serial Tourist Permits.


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

ojosazules11 said:


> I believe it was Tundra Green who stated he was at a meeting with a regional INM official who stated that leaving and returning every 180 was a legitimate way for expats who do not hold a residence permit to live in Mexico on a longer term basis. Do I have that right, Tundra?
> 
> The border agent at the Mexico City airport whom I asked precisely about this issue also said they can clearly see in their system that someone is essentially living in Mexico when they leave and return every 180 days. He also said that this is not against the law.
> 
> Fortunately, Mexican immigration officis/border agents are the ones interpreting and applying the regulations, not any of us on the forum.
> 
> This _burra_ is getting out of the trigo now.😊


Ojos, thanks for sussing this out. I think your research points to a wider source of some angst on this forum. There are members who are 100% legalistic, who think everything that exists is written down and codified. They've lived in Mexico a long time, but for some reason haven't cottoned on to one of the joys (and I guess, aggravations) of living in Mexico, that what is, is what the people do, not what this regulation or that law says, i.e., Mexico City traffic is a wonderful example. To the newbie, it looks like pure anarchy, for example on Insurgents with no lanes marked and cars in no particular order, but in reality, [most[ drivers follow unwritten rules. As you and another poster have found out by asking immigration officials at entry points that it is neither forbidden nor expressly allowed for foreigners to live in Mexico on 180-day spurts, but just is, for now.

Not only in the Mexico forum. In the U.S. and Euro, when newbies pose questions about immigrating, there are a few who immediately post stern rebukes saying impossible unless you meet rigid regulations that they keep ready to put into lists. It doesn't matter whether it's an English or a person from the Indian subcontinent, but that is just absurd, as posters with real life experience will sometime post, and I know from my own experience.

You nave a lot of patience.


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it. The ultimate answer would probably come from one of the INM regional offices (or the national office) when an expat presents him/herself and says: "I live in Mexico and I intend to continue living in Mexico for the foreseeable future. I have been living in Mexico with permission granted for a short-term and/or for tourism purposes and I do not want to apply for a visa in one of the expat residencey categories because I cannot meet the requirements. My 'not to exceed 180 days' permission is expiring and I would like you to give me another n/t/e 180-days; and I'll return at the end of that period for another, etc." I will be interested in learning the response the expat receives.


You are essentially saying we should go up to a government official in a country known for machismo and say we aren't going to bother with Mexican residency requirements, we'll just do it the way we want to. Gee, wonder how that'll go over? The fact is we who don't qualify for residency are, or at least should be, grateful there's another avenue allowing extended time in the country. And when we go to the border every 6 months to get a new card we are complying with Mexican laws concerning such cards. That card doesn't give us the rights and perks of residency. It just allows up to 180 days in country. Do you really think Mexico would prefer we leave and not come back right away to spend more money in their economy?


----------



## Meritorious-MasoMenos

vantexan said:


> You are essentially saying we should go up to a government official in a country known for machismo and say we aren't going to bother with Mexican residency requirements, we'll just do it the way we want to. Gee, wonder how that'll go over? The fact is we who don't qualify for residency are, or at least should be, grateful there's another avenue allowing extended time in the country. And when we go to the border every 6 months to get a new card we are complying with Mexican laws concerning such cards. That card doesn't give us the rights and perks of residency. It just allows up to 180 days in country. Do you really think Mexico would prefer we leave and not come back right away to spend more money in their economy?


Re your: "Do you really think Mexico would prefer we leave and not come back right away to spend more money in their economy?"

Exactly. That is the simple argument I've been making too. You expressed it much more clearly, though.


----------



## AlanMexicali

vantexan said:


> You are essentially saying we should go up to a government official in a country known for machismo and say we aren't going to bother with Mexican residency requirements, we'll just do it the way we want to. Gee, wonder how that'll go over? The fact is we who don't qualify for residency are, or at least should be, grateful there's another avenue allowing extended time in the country. And when we go to the border every 6 months to get a new card we are complying with Mexican laws concerning such cards. That card doesn't give us the rights and perks of residency. It just allows up to 180 days in country. Do you really think Mexico would prefer we leave and not come back right away to spend more money in their economy?


Also how many Snowbirds rent or own houses and condos in Mexico? Have vehicles bought in Mexico and left at their residences? Have their place full of their stuff, usallly bought in Mexico. Have a desire to stay at their place for more than 180 days per year when retired? Have another place NOB? Fly or drive back and forth several times a year? 

Some of them get FMM tourist cards several times a year and live part time retired in both Mexico and NOB. Is this senario that uncommon now and in the past? I think not. Is the INM going to stop them from doing this?

Also why would anyone go into an INM office inside Mexico where that office usually never deals with FMM tourist cards except to extend one once in a blue moon to talk about FMM tourist cards? 

Why not talk to an INM officer about FMM tourist cards who is assigned to a border crossing or an international airport that deals with FMM tourist cards and tourists from many countries daily and is their main line of work, not processing immigrants wanting residency as is the main job of INM offices inside Mexico? 

Myself and others who actually have talked to INM officers at border crosssings and at international airports all report that they were told there is no limit per year on issuing FMM tourist cards to foreigners.


----------



## AlanMexicali

Longford said:


> The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it. The ultimate answer would probably come from one of the INM regional offices (or the national office) when an expat presents him/herself and says: "I live in Mexico and I intend to continue living in Mexico for the foreseeable future. I have been living in Mexico with permission granted for a short-term and/or for tourism purposes and I do not want to apply for a visa in one of the expat residencey categories because I cannot meet the requirements. My 'not to exceed 180 days' permission is expiring and I would like you to give me another n/t/e 180-days; and I'll return at the end of that period for another, etc." I will be interested in learning the response the expat receives.


An INM office inside Mexico cannot process a new FMM tourist card as the rules and 2012 law states. The FMM tourist cards are issuued at all ports of entry. International airports or land crossings by INM officers.

INM offices inside Mexico are authorized to extend an FMM tourist card that was already issued by an INM officer in one of those locations only. 

Either an already issued 180 day FMM tourist card with proof of medical disabilities where the tourist is too ill to travel or a less than 180 day tourist card where they are authorized to extend it up until 180 days.

Other than that a tourist needs to go back to the border and get a new one or fly out of the country and fly back in on an international flight and get a new one from the INM officer at any international airport when passing through immigration there.


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it.…


For regular readers of this forum, this is an old debate. Longford has his opinion and none of us are going to change it. Newcomers should realize that all of us are just expressing our opinions and, as the old adage goes, they are worth just what you pay for them: nothing. All that really matters is what you experience yourself, and all this forum does is give you an indication of what you might expect.


----------



## chicois8

Sometimes a lot of hot of hot air flows from the windy city, especially if the subject of a border run comes up....
Poor longford still can not show a link to a Mexican Government web site stating the 180 day border run is illegal....but Inbet he has looked,*LOL* ..........


----------



## AlanMexicali

Longford said:


> The best interpretation of the residency regulations for expats is in their writing. They're available for all to read. If you've seen something in them which provides an exemption for expats or which allows long-term residency under permission granted for short-term or tourism purposes go ahead and link it to this discussion so that I/we can see it. The ultimate answer would probably come from one of the INM regional offices (or the national office) when an expat presents him/herself and says: "I live in Mexico and I intend to continue living in Mexico for the foreseeable future. I have been living in Mexico with permission granted for a short-term and/or for tourism purposes and I do not want to apply for a visa in one of the expat residencey categories because I cannot meet the requirements. My 'not to exceed 180 days' permission is expiring and I would like you to give me another n/t/e 180-days; and I'll return at the end of that period for another, etc." I will be interested in learning the response the expat receives.



Here is a Google Translation of the 2012 INM law you asked to see and it clearly states foreign tourists who meet these requirements can get a 180 day maximun permit, no limit on how many permits in a row or when another permit can be given. No mention of one 180 day permit only in a 12 month period. The regulations state the same thing as the law.


"Article 40. Foreigners who wish to enter the country must submit [apply for] one of the following types of visa, validly issued and outstanding:

I. VISITOR WITHOUT PERMISSION TO CONDUCT ACTIVITIES PAID. Authorized foreigners to travel abroad or stay in the country for no more than one hundred eighty days [180 days] uninterrupted time counted from the date of entry without permission for activities subject to remuneration in the country. 

Article 34 Mexicans and foreigners can enter and exit the country by places for international transit of persons by land, sea and air. 
Regular admission to the country will be made at the time the person passes through the filter review immigration located in places for international transit of persons by land, sea and air within the schedules established for that purpose and with the intervention of the authorities migratory.

Article 35 To enter and leave the country, Mexicans and foreigners must meet the requirements required by this Act, its Regulations and other applicable legal provisions. 

Articles 13 to 47 
It is exclusively personnel guard the entrance and exit of the national Institute foreigners and checking the documentation thereof. 

Article 36 Mexicans may not be denied the right to enter the country. to 
Accordingly, they must prove their nationality in addition to meeting other requirements established in this Act, its Regulations and other applicable legal provisions.

Mexican nationality checked with any of the following documents:

I. Passport; 
II. Citizen Identity Card or Personal Identity Card or equivalent; 
III. Certified copy of Birth Certificate; 
IV. Consular fees; 
V. Letter of Naturalization, or 
VI. Certificate of Mexican Nationality. 
In your case, you can identify with voting card with photograph issued by the authority national election, or any other document issued by the authority in the exercise of their functions. 
A lack of supporting documents mentioned in the previous sections, for the purposes of the provisions of this article may be credited Mexican nationality by any other 
objective element of conviction to allow the Institute to determine that they meet the assumptions of accreditation of Mexican nationality. 

In cases in which the Institute has sufficient elements to presume the lack of authenticity of documents or accuracy of the information provided proof of nationality Mexican determine admission or rejection of the person concerned, after performing the investigation. This procedure should be rational and in no case exceed 4 hours. 

Also, when entering the country, Mexicans are obliged to provide the information and personal data within the scope of their powers, whether they sought by authorities competent and entitled to be informed about the legal requirements established for entering and leaving the country. 

Article 37 To enter the country, foreigners should:

I. Present on immigration filter review before the Institute, the following documents: 
a) Passport or identity and travel which is valid under the law 
international force and 
b) Where required, visa duly issued and in force, in terms of Article 40 of this Act; or 

c) A residence card or authorization status stay regional visitor, visitor frontier worker or visitor on humanitarian grounds. 

II. Provide information and personal data requested by the competent authorities in the within its powers. 
III. No visa is required for foreigners who are located in one of the following assumptions:

a) Nationals of countries with which it has signed an agreement abolishing visa or not visa required under a unilateral decision taken by the Mexican government; 

b) status seekers stay visitor and regional guest worker border; 
c) Holders of a permit of departure and return; 
d) Holders of a condition of authorized stay, where to previously determine the 
Secretariat; 
e) Applicants for refugee status, complementary protection and determining 
stateless person, or humanitarian reasons or force majeure and 
f) Members of the crew of a ship."

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LMigra.pdf


----------



## Longford

AlanMexicali said:


> Here is a Google Translation of the 2012 INM law you asked to see and it clearly states foreign tourists who meet these requirements can get a 180 day maximun permit, no limit on how many permits in a row or when another permit can be given.


The discussion has been, as I'm recalling, about expats who reside in Mexico - not about tourists; my remarks have specifically referenced the expat resident issue. The tourist-stay issue is a discussion all together different.


----------



## AlanMexicali

Longford said:


> The discussion has been, as I'm recalling, about expats who reside in Mexico - not about tourists; my remarks have specifically referenced the expat resident issue. The tourist-stay issue is a discussion all together different.



Google Translation:


"Article 26 card of admission procedures at the national territory in the form, placement of people 
foreigners who do not require visas: 
Case presented: Foreigners who intend to enter the country as 
visitors without permission to engage in gainful activity and are 
nationals of countries with which Mexico has agreed suppression 
visa, or visas are not required under a unilateral decision 
or commitment of the Mexican state.

Legal basis: Articles 3, Sections XI, XII, XV, XVIII and XXIX, 13, 16, 17, 34, 35, 37, 
38, 43, 45, 81, 86, 87, 88 of the Law; 3 fractions IV, X, XV, XXII and XXVI; 
51, 55, 57, 60, 61, 65, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 89, last paragraph, 90, 93, 
94, 98 and 152 of the Regulation.

Form of presentation: Personal.

Place where it occurs: Places for international movement of people.

Amount of rights: The appropriate pursuant to Federal Law. 

Maximum resolution period: Immediate. 

Term of authorization: 180 calendar days. 

7 calendar days for aircrew members on active duty. 
3 calendar days to crew vessels in 
surtas navigation height national ports. 
21 calendar days people aboard cruise ships documented 
with collective permission. 

Requirements: 
1 passport or identity card and travel document that is valid under the law 
international.

2 FMM properly filled. 

3 The alien beneficiary of commitments made by the Mexican government, in addition to 
referenced documents shall have any of the following documents:

a) A document certifying permanent residence in Canada, United States of America, 
Japan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or any of the countries that 
comprise the Schengen Area; 

b) Visa valid and in force in the United States of America; 

c) Card APEC Business Traveler (ABTC) adopted by Mexico;

d) Certificate stating that as a member of the crew of the aircraft as above, or

e) Book sea, if a member of the crew of the vessel up to the Mexican port 
in international voyage. If the crew up by air to enroll on a ship anchored in 
national port must also submit the book sea, document proving their 
enrollment, data from the boat and the Mexican port in which it is located.

4 The immigration authority may request the foreign person to check the reason for your trip, 
by any of the following documents: 

a) Hotel reservation, return ticket (itinerary), tickets tour (itinerary).

b) Letter mandate in Spanish parent company, affiliate or subsidiary that foreign 
indicates that the alien is employed by it and the payment of the services 
they paid in the country shall be borne by it.

c) Copy of the transfer of technology, patents and trademarks, sale of 
machinery and equipment, technical staff training, or any other related 
production process of a company based in Mexico or linking to the party 
foreign to the Mexican side, or proof of appointment by the shareholders 
companies legally established in Mexico.

d) Letter from public or private organization or institution to invite foreign person 
to participate in an unpaid activity on national territory, in order to manifest 
the visit and the estimated length of stay. If the organization or institution will meet 
the travel and stay of the foreigner in the country, should be 
attach responsive letter. 

e) Letter of invitation or acceptance of an institution belonging to the Educational System 
National for courses, studies or research projects or training by a 
maximum stay of one hundred eighty days. 

5 In the case of children or adolescents or persons under legal protection in terms of legislation 
civil, when accompanied by an adult traveling alone or third, must submit 
document attesting authorization to leave the country for people who exercise 
upon them the authority or guardianship granted before a notary public or competent authority. 
In the case of a document issued abroad, must be legalized or apostilled 
as applicable, with translation in the case of a language other than Spanish.

6 Where applicable, the Department shall provide the information you require."



Here are the regulations for foreigners being admitted into Mexico, ,not workers, but foreigners being in the National Territory legally. It states the requirements needed and what the INM rules dictate. No where does it state anyone needs a Residency Visa to be in the National Territory. 

If a foreigner can be in the National Territory legally by meeting these requirements without a Residency Visa, what is the problem? Semantics.?

http://www.inm.gob.mx/static/marco_...entos_tramites_procedimientos_migratorios.pdf


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> The discussion has been, as I'm recalling, about expats who reside in Mexico - not about tourists; my remarks have specifically referenced the expat resident issue. The tourist-stay issue is a discussion all together different.


Within this thread and others you've repeatedly pointed out that those who're living in Mexico on successive tourist cards rather than going through the residency process are breaking the law. That the Mexican government doesn't allow it and if we don't believe that then challenge an official at the border with our plans to skirt Mexican law and see what he says. Anyone researching the subject and seeing this stated without counter arguments may be mislead to believe they don't have the ability to live in Mexico long term because they don't meet financial requirements for residency. So yes the tourist-stay issue is part of this discussion.


----------



## AlanMexicali

vantexan said:


> Within this thread and others you've repeatedly pointed out that those who're living in Mexico on successive tourist cards rather than going through the residency process are breaking the law. That the Mexican government doesn't allow it and if we don't believe that then challenge an official at the border with our plans to skirt Mexican law and see what he says. Anyone researching the subject and seeing this stated without counter arguments may be mislead to believe they don't have the ability to live in Mexico long term because they don't meet financial requirements for residency. So yes the tourist-stay issue is part of this discussion.


What it basically boils down to is the INM officer issuing the 180 Visitante permit is the person who make the decisión to issue it for as long as he/she likes up until 180 days máximum or not. They are following the 2012 law and the 2012 regulations and have to determine if the foreigner meets the requirements or not. By the law and rules the INM officer has to abide by them regardless of what a foreigner thinks is the law or rules. IMO


----------



## citlali

yes it is exactly the way it works, I have seen them at Mesilla give 30 days rather than 180 days so if Mexico does not want a foreigner to renew for 180 days it can give permit for less.
I am not sure why it is a big issue with some people so it is a loophole to get out of getting a temporary, Mexico can change that loophole if it wants so far it has not so let it be.


----------



## Longford

Most high school students probably understand the difference in the meanings of "tourist" and "resident", and I'm assuming that most people who post here similarly understand the difference, both in how the terms are used commonly in every day discussion ... and, hopefully, how the different categories are treated in the regulations. Persons who establish residency in Mexico and who remain in Mexico continuously for 180-days or longer are expected to apply for _Residente Temporal_ visa (as contrasted with a _Visitante_ - not to exceed 180-days) or a visa in another appropriate residency category. I believe the regulations are clear on that point.


----------



## vantexan

AlanMexicali said:


> What it basically boils down to is the INM officer issuing the 180 Visitante permit is the person who make the decisión to issue it for as long as he/she likes up until 180 days máximum or not. They are following the 2012 law and the 2012 regulations and have to determine if the foreigner meets the requirements or not. By the law and rules the INM officer has to abide by them regardless of what a foreigner thinks is the law or rules. IMO


When we went through Laredo last October we were given 180 days without being asked. While they can give less, as Citlali points out, most I'm betting will give the 180, probably in hopes that the tourist will stay as long as possible.


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> Most high school students probably understand the difference in the meanings of "tourist" and "resident", and I'm assuming that most people who post here similarly understand the difference, both in how the terms are used commonly in every day discussion ... and, hopefully, how the different categories are treated in the regulations. Persons who establish residency in Mexico and who remain in Mexico continuously for 180-days or longer are expected to apply for _Residente Temporal_ visa (as contrasted with a _Visitante_ - not to exceed 180-days) or a visa in another appropriate residency category. I believe the regulations are clear on that point.


Well there it is. A tourist who leaves the country at the 180 day limit or before, and then comes back on a new tourist card, isn't in the country continuously for longer than 180 days and thus is in compliance with Mexican law.


----------



## ojosazules11

Longford said:


> Most high school students probably understand the difference in the meanings of "tourist" and "resident", and I'm assuming that most people who post here similarly understand the difference, both in how the terms are used commonly in every day discussion ... and, hopefully, how the different categories are treated in the regulations. Persons who establish residency in Mexico and who remain in Mexico continuously for 180-days or longer are expected to apply for _Residente Temporal_ visa (as contrasted with a _Visitante_ - not to exceed 180-days) or a visa in another appropriate residency category. I believe the regulations are clear on that point.


Gosh, I had told myself that I was going to stay out of this particular wheat field, and here I go again! 

First of all, it's not a tourist permit, it's a visitor's permit. A subtle difference, but nevertheless... A Resident Permit provides for more than just the right to reside in Mexico. Depending on the type of permit, holders of these permits may have the right to work, may have access to government services available only to residents and citizens, may have access to discounts, such as senior citizens, etc. They also can remain continuously in Mexico past the 180 day limit of the Visitor Permit. So there are other benefits which differentiate the "Resident Permit" and "Visitor Permit" than simply being allowed to live in Mexico for the long term. 

What I still don't understand about your opinion - to which you are certainly entitled - is your response to the various Mexican Immigration personnel who have told at least 3 of us on this forum that it is not against the regulations for foreigners to live long-term in Mexico on serial Visitor Permits. Why do you think they told us it is acceptable if it is against their own regulations?


----------



## lagoloo

This is running into a semantics wall, IMO.

Let's say I'm a more or less marginal type who is never, ever going to financially qualify for permanent residence but I really want the Mexico life. According to what I read as the law, there's nothing to stop me from applying for that 180 day visitor permit, leaving when I should, visiting my NOB buddies for a few days and heading back for another visitor permit, then repeating the process for the rest of my natural born days. I don't see anything that says such a person CAN'T do that.
Whether this is "right" or not is another issue, but "legal" and "right" don't always coincide.


----------



## chicois8

ojosazules11 said:


> Gosh, I had told myself that I was going to stay out of this particular wheat field, and here I go again!
> 
> First of all, it's not a tourist permit, it's a visitor's permit. A subtle difference, but nevertheless... A Resident Permit provides for more than just the right to reside in Mexico. Depending on the type of permit, holders of these permits may have the right to work, may have access to government services available only to residents and citizens, may have access to discounts, such as senior citizens, etc. They also can remain continuously in Mexico past the 180 day limit of the Visitor Permit. So there are other benefits which differentiate the "Resident Permit" and "Visitor Permit" than simply being allowed to live in Mexico for the long term.
> 
> What I still don't understand about your opinion - to which you are certainly entitled - is your response to the various Mexican Immigration personnel who have told at least 3 of us on this forum that it is not against the regulations for foreigners to live long-term in Mexico on serial Visitor Permits. Why do you think they told us it is acceptable if it is against their own regulations?


I am looking at a tourist permit I got last Wednesday and it is a FMM form,in the area where I fill it out #7 asks" purpose of trip" and I checked Turismo/Tourist... 
On the top of the form it says" FORMA MIGRATORIA MULTIPLE ( FMM )
Since #7 has Turismo/Tourist and not Visitante/Visitor I will continue to call it a tourist permit......The agent stamped the lower right hand corner and wrote 180 in the Dias/ Day box........


----------



## ojosazules11

chicois8 said:


> I am looking at a tourist permit I got last Wednesday and it is a FMM form,in the area where I fill it out #7 asks" purpose of trip" and I checked Turismo/Tourist...
> On the top of the form it says" FORMA MIGRATORIA MULTIPLE ( FMM )
> Since #7 has Turismo/Tourist and not Visitante/Visitor I will continue to call it a tourist permit......The agent stamped the lower right hand corner and wrote 180 in the Dias/ Day box........


Yeah it's a semantic wall, as Lagoloo points out. Earlier in this thread I myself referred to it as a tourist permit. I made the comment that it is a visitor's permit based on the regulations Alan posted which repeatedly refer to the Visitor Permit. I was reacting to the allegation that if a person is living here they can't technically be a "tourist", whereas in my mind a long-term "visitor" is a bit different. Maybe that's just in my mind. 

But for those who think expats who re-enter every 180 days are contravening the regulations, I really am interested in their opinion of why Mexican Immigration officials have stated to others that this is not so.

It doesn't affect me personally, but I think the insinuation that those who do "border runs" are somehow doing something shady is not fair and not accurate. Border agents can see when people exit and re-enter and they have every right to do what they will with that - and it sounds like in most cases what they do us give them another 180 days. But now I'm repeating what has been said _ad nauseum_. Back to cleaning out my closets...


----------



## Isla Verde

ojosazules11 said:


> ... But now I'm repeating what has been said _ad nauseum_. Back to cleaning out my closets...


Sounds like a better use of your time ...


----------



## ojosazules11

Isla Verde said:


> Sounds like a better use of your time ...


I agree!


----------

