# American coming in from south



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

This may seem an odd question, but: if I'm living in Merida, rather than run all the way North every 6 months, can I go into Belize or Guatamala, and return thereby renewing my FMM? (I am having issues with fm2/3.)

If anyone has actually done this and can confirm it through experience, that'd be most helpful. If you know it IS a viable option, that'll help too. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

My understanding of the law and regulations is that ... if you're residing in Mexico instead of visiting as a tourist, the difference in status I think we all understand ... you are required to apply for a visa which approves and recognizes that residency status. Is there a reason why you're not doing that, insted of contemplating travling back and forth across the border every 6 months?


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

Yep. Income, frankly. I'm living on SSD only, and the 2k (or whatever it actually translates to) is above my income. I have been thinking about this for years, and after doing the wrong kind of research (climate, cost of living, etc.), I learned this very disheartening news after researching what I should have looked into right away. The only viable answer I can come up with is to renew the tourist visa by xing back into Mexico. Can that be renewed from a southern border after getting the initial visa here in the USA, any idea?


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

I wish Longford would point out the law or regulation on any official Mexican website stating one can not live in Mexico on an FMM and make a border run to the USA,Belize or Guatemala every 180 days...

Of course he can not do it because he is completely wrong, guess he is reading Longford's Immigration Rules instead of the Mexican Immigration Rules.....

I believe there is a daily ADO bus from Merida to Belize.......good luck


----------



## grotton (Apr 20, 2012)

You can renew your FMM by traveling to Guatemala and returning. However that is the one border where I am hearing from travelers that sometimes (seemingly at random) their FMM is only being renewed for 30 days. Have no knowledge of the border with Belize.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

grotton said:


> You can renew your FMM by traveling to Guatemala and returning. However that is the one border where I am hearing from travelers that sometimes (seemingly at random) their FMM is only being renewed for 30 days. Have no knowledge of the border with Belize.


The FMM cannot be renewed. You must turn it in when you leave Mexico and get a new one when you return. Hopefully, you will get a new 180 day permit, but if the border agent wishes, it could be shorter, even refused if he remembers your face from five minutes ago.
So, why not spend a few days and return to Mexico wearing different clothes, etc. and at a different time of day.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Mexico clearly defines who it wants to approve as residents, by the income and other standards clearly specified. Yes, people can break the law by sneaking back and forth across the border pretending to be a tourist. But such behavior should not be encouraged. If someone likes Mexico enough to move to the country then the should show some respect for Mexico, Mexicans and the nation as a whole. Walk up to the supervisor at any INM office and tell him/her you don't meet the requirements set by regulation/law but you've been living in Mexico 'under the radar' and want to continue doing that by having the INM office issue another permission for short-term entry not meant for residents. Then come back to report to us on what the answer is. I think most of us can assume what will happen, and that's why some people sneak around.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Longford said:


> Mexico clearly defines who it wants to approve as residents, by the income and other standards clearly specified. Yes, people can break the law by sneaking back and forth across the border pretending to be a tourist. But such behavior should not be encouraged. If someone likes Mexico enough to move to the country then the should show some respect for Mexico, Mexicans and the nation as a whole. Walk up to the supervisor at any INM office and tell him/her you don't meet the requirements set by regulation/law but you've been living in Mexico 'under the radar' and want to continue doing that by having the INM office issue another permission for short-term entry not meant for residents. Then come back to report to us on what the answer is. I think most of us can assume what will happen, and that's why some people sneak around.


The better question would be to ask is it ok after spending 180 days on a tourist visa if it's ok to get another one for another 180 days. And if so how many times can one do that since you don't meet the financial requirements for permanent residency. Why be confrontational, why push an official?


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

It's all very well to talk about respect, but a person living here who can't meet those new, stringent financial requirements isn't showing a "lack of respect" for Mexico.......he just can't hack the new rules. There are many people I know of who have lived here for years, want to stay here, and who couldn't normally meet them, but have progressed through the system under the old rules and now are able to get Permanente status simply by dint of having had the years and visas under their belts. Those who didn't........lets have some empathy. Those new financial rules are TOUGH. Millions of Mexicans don't have anywhere near that level of income and survive just fine.
Besides, he probably couldn't survive on his income if he returned to the States. Anyone notice the real cost of living there these days? So now what? Commit Sepukku?


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

longford writes:" Yes, people can break the law by sneaking back and forth across the border pretending to be a tourist."

As I said before, longford show me a Mexican Government website that shows a LAW that says folks can not do the 180 day border shuffle.... You will not be able to do it and you will disappear from this thread until this subject appears in the future, then you will be the one sneaking back with your B.S.


----------



## suegarn (Jan 31, 2013)

I agree with Longford on this one. People should respect the rules of the country that they choose to live in. If you can't qualify, then you could become a burden on their government. Americans complain about illegal Mexicans being in their country all the time, so why should Mexico turn a blind eye?


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

My Opinion:

I just do not understand why a poster from the windy city would constantly attacks posters who maybe less fortunate and can not make the income requirements by basically calling them criminals and lawbreakers, people “sneaking back and fourth across borders and pretending to be tourists”...

By making these statements I believe he is breaking Rule #1, which reads:

1. Expatforum.com is an interactive site. Please treat others here the way you wish to be treated, with respect, and without insult or personal attack.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

suegarn said:


> I agree with Longford on this one. People should respect the rules of the country that they choose to live in. If you can't qualify, then you could become a burden on their government. Americans complain about illegal Mexicans being in their country all the time, so why should Mexico turn a blind eye?


If they give 180 days on a tourist card does that mean you must stay in hotels and visit tourist sites every day? And those on tourist cards aren't illegal nor does Mexican law specify that you can't obtain another 180 days on a new card. Think of it this way: qualifying for residence gives you privileges and makes living in Mexico much more convenient. Those that don't qualify must leave and re-enter. On another forum posters specifically asked a major immigration official during a meeting about the new rules whether people could still stay 180 days then go to the border for another 180 days in perpetuity and he said yes, nothing had changed in that regard, it was still allowed.


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

suegarn said:


> I agree with Longford on this one. People should respect the rules of the country that they choose to live in. If you can't qualify, then you could become a burden on their government. Americans complain about illegal Mexicans being in their country all the time, so why should Mexico turn a blind eye?


They are not turning a blind eye if it is legal to get repeated tourist stays by leaving and re-entering the country.
In this and many other cases, it's not a matter of becoming a "burden" to the Mexican government, especially since there is no welfare plan for expats and very little even for citizens. The financial requirements have been set (IMO) ridiculously high for expats to qualify for permanent residence; much higher than actually necessary for persons living in Mexico. 

I'm guessing that the OP and many others who go that route are doing so because they can survive on their income more easily in Mexico than they can in the states.
For instance, you can rent a decent dwelling in Mexico (even in places like the Lake Chapala area) for well under $500 a month U.S. Anyone know where you can do this in the U.S.? Food prices are far less here than in the states. How could you live on $1200 a month in the states these days? Yet, that and less are the common SS pension. People can manage on that in Mexico, but they need much more to qualify for permanent residency under the new rules.

What I'm speaking of is simple survival for many people. It's not illegal, either, like those who cross the U.S. border with no permission at all.

Naturally, the Mexican government would prefer the wealthier immigrants, but a little compassion for those who aren't so well off doesn't hurt. They, too, contribute to the economy. Or, to put it another way: "there, but for fortune, go I". :fingerscrossed:


----------



## suegarn (Jan 31, 2013)

This is a quote from Spencer McMullen, an immigration lawyer in Guadalajara, about the new visa requirements for permanent status. 

Anything new regarding visas?
Yes, immigration is now requiring anyone jumping ahead to get a Residente Permanente visa to show their retirement benefits statement—like for Americans, their Social Security statements and Canadians their T4 statements. That’s in addition to their bank statements. That shouldn’t be difficult because most people have that. It just wasn’t required before.

This pertains to people who are trying to fast-track their visas. If you don't qualify for that, you can always apply for temporary status for the first four years, and then at that time, you can apply for permanent status with no financial records needed.

Again, just because some immigration officials will turn a blind eye to people living here on tourist visas for a long time, doesn't mean that it's right! You are still disrespecting the rules that your host country has set!


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

suegarn says"You are still disrespecting the rules that your host country has set!"

suegarn, I make the same challenge to you as I did for longford, show me the rule that states a person can not live in Mexico on an FMM and make border runs evey 180 days on any Mexican Government 
website.......just show me.........


----------



## grotton (Apr 20, 2012)

It doesn't matter what peoples opinions are. Individuals frequently post opinions as facts which makes the information available on the forum less valuable. It is legal to leave Mexico and return soon after, thus obtaining a new 180 day FMM and then to continue living here. The government of Mexico judges the qualifications of an individual to enter the country at the point of entry when one is questioned by an immigration official. As I mentioned earlier, at the boarder with Guatemala people suspected of staying indefinitely or working (perhaps selling trinkets in San Cristobal de las Casas,) are sometimes being turned away or given only 30 days on their FMM. The exact same thing happens when entering the United States. It is legal for a Mexican citizen to enter the USA with a tourist visa and be granted a 6 month stay. It is also legal for them to leave the country at the end of 6 months and to try to return for another 6 months. This is specifically legal. In the USA, immigration may well turn you away if you try this. That too is legal. What is illegal is sneaking into the country without going through immigration or staying within the country in violation of whatever status they legally obtained to arrive there in the first place.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

suegarn said:


> …Again, just because some immigration officials will turn a blind eye to people living here on tourist visas for a long time, doesn't mean that it's right! You are still disrespecting the rules that your host country has set!


This is getting pretty old. A tourist permit is good for 180 days. After that you have to leave the country. The rules say nothing whatsoever about any waiting period before you can get another one. I was told by a representative of INM (Mexican immigration) that they do not care how many times people get a tourist permit.

Incidentally, the US does something similar. I had a British post-doc working for me one time. When her visa expired, she had to leave the country but could immediately return on a new visa. She and her son had to make a trip to the Canadian border to exit and return.


----------



## suegarn (Jan 31, 2013)

TundraGreen, if the person that was working for you in the US was British, then she would have had to get a tourist visa to enter Canada when her US visa expired, would she not? Otherwise, she would've been entering Canada illegally!


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

suegarn, my challenge still exists....show me


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

suegarn said:


> TundraGreen, if the person that was working for you in the US was British, then she would have had to get a tourist visa to enter Canada when her US visa expired, would she not? Otherwise, she would've been entering Canada illegally!


This was about 15 years ago. I do not know what the rules were on her and her son entering Canada. They made a short trip to the border and returned the same day. This happened in San Francisco. I also don't know why they chose the Canadian border rather than the Mexican border which might have been a little closer.

The details are a little hazy to me now. I believe she was in the US on a visiting scientist visa and her son as a dependent. He was a teenager. Her visa was about to expire and the paperwork was in process for a new visa. But she was not going to get the new visa in time. Staying in the country after the old visa expired would have made her ineligible for a new visa. So she and her son had to exit and then return on a tourist visa which they used until her visiting scientist visa was reissued. 

She wasn't a very happy camper about the requirement, but then there were a lot of things that seemed to make her an unhappy camper, so she got less sympathy than she might have. She was what is sometimes called a "high-maintenance" employee.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

suegarn said:


> TundraGreen, if the person that was working for you in the US was British, then she would have had to get a tourist visa to enter Canada when her US visa expired, would she not? Otherwise, she would've been entering Canada illegally!


Mexico doesn't require a tourist visa if you stay within the zone next to the border. Millions of people go back and forth across the border every day legally to shop, etc. For Americans the biggest issue when day tripping across the border is having a passport to get back into the States.

Have you considered how much beneficial economic activity is generated when many thousands make a couple of border runs a year? Think Mexico wants to give that up?


----------



## Detailman (Aug 27, 2011)

Longford said:


> Mexico clearly defines who it wants to approve as residents, by the income and other standards clearly specified. Yes, people can break the law by sneaking back and forth across the border pretending to be a tourist. But such behavior should not be encouraged. If someone likes Mexico enough to move to the country then the should show some respect for Mexico, Mexicans and the nation as a whole. Walk up to the supervisor at any INM office and tell him/her you don't meet the requirements set by regulation/law but you've been living in Mexico 'under the radar' and want to continue doing that by having the INM office issue another permission for short-term entry not meant for residents. Then come back to report to us on what the answer is. I think most of us can assume what will happen, and that's why some people sneak around.


I have noticed that you are very firm on your opinion on this matter. I respect that and I do not want to get involved in a discussion on the pros and cons of the subject.

What I would like to present is my "opinion" on the application of laws. Many laws are created to negate certain negative things happening by certain groups of people. Some could argue that the laws should be applied to all people without regard to circumstances but then you get into very "grey" areas.

Rather than use this current situation as an example, let me illustrate it with other examples.

In Canada if they found people carrying "pepper spray" they would confiscate it in many situations, especially if it was found on young people, gang people, etc. I am a long distance runner and carry pepper spray because I have come across people walking their "dangerous" dogs off lease (prohibited in most areas) (I say dangerous because they started to charge to attack). I have repeatedly asked various RCMP officers if they had a problem with my carrying pepper spray while I was running (bearing in mind that I am almost 70). Not one had a problem with it and yet the law stipulates otherwise.

Second example: Drinking in public such as a park, beach, etc. I have done that but in such a way that it was very subtle. A glass of wine poured so that no-one could see me do it and not putting it in anyone's face while my wife and I enjoyed it along with a picnic lunch.

I have had occasions when RCMP approached and saw my wife and I enjoying a lunch with liquor. I will state one case where we had beer (had several bottles with us) and they joked that they were just in time for lunch. Knowing the law I initiated a conversation on it and they admitted that there was discretion on applying the law although it was not in the written rules. If for example they came across a group of young people with several cases of beer and no food and being very loud and somewhat disorderly they would confiscate the beer. When they came across an older couple like ourselves enjoying a picnic lunch with a beer or two and no more and in an area where we were not doing so in front of many other people they had no problem whatsoever.

What is my point? Be somewhat flexible in how you view things. Laws can and should be applied according to the circumstances and with discretion when it is minor issues involved.

It seams clear that this is one of those issues that the government seldom makes an issue of as they would rather have the money spent in their country than elsewhere. The permit supplied restricts to quite a degree what the person can expect from the Mexican government and they know that so they allow it in most cases. If they do what is the problem? Respect? Disrespect? I don't think those are the issues.

I reply to you as I have found that most of your contributions are based on long time experiences in Mexico - far, far more than mine I will admit. I wouldn't even come close to your time in Mexico. As a person who respects your contribution I would simply suggest that you reexamine your rigid stance on this 'one' issue.

That of course is completely up to you - not up to me. I know you love Mexico!!


----------



## DennyDaddy (May 3, 2011)

IMM can issue the number of days on its FMM. Its up to the officer on duty at the time. Yes, weather legal or not FMM's are issued for 180 days, and re-issused at the border. But with Mexico going to computors, they will know how offen its done.
So, anytime in the who knowns when, they can cut you off. And they can issue any amount up to 180.

At my membership RV park in Arizona there is this man and wife from Hollan, who have a park model they own, on their lease lot here in the US. Every year the US Councel in their home country gives them a six month visa. A few times in the last couple of years the US IMM officer changed it to a shorter peroid at his will. This country is their part time home. They would not change it to the full 6 months, as they lived part time here and part time there, in there home country. They sold out and moved to Aruba. Everything here is on a computor.

And border shopping in the free zone does not require an FMM. So yes shoppers can go back and forth. 

Mexico does not want people from other countries to live perm unless they can prove they can support themselves. This was told to me at an Mexican Councel in the states. That is the purpus of the temp and perm visa, and they put an amount that you need to have, or what they require.

So now, what if Mexico gets its computor system up and running, and decides to lessen the days or even refuse a re-newal! Those living on the FMM most likely may have a house, lots of stuff, or whatever to retreave. I don!t have an answer, but it could, and may happen.

Now, if things up north, in the US gets even worst, or the buck goes bunk, there may be a rush to come to Mexico on FMM's, to live. At that point or actually any point Mexico can cut the FMM renuwal off or whatever. They will spot if your on vacation, and give an FMM tourest request, but may question continued use for living in Mexico.

Thats why I went from tem resdent to get my perm visa, cause anytime the Mex gov can up the amount monthly needed to get a perm visa. I was luckly that we could afford it now, for maybe later if a change is made by the Mex gov, I had it, and then would not worry if totol income is increased or that they will restruct who comes in perm.

As what I am trying to say is, living perm in Mexico could be on shaky grounds, and maybe do whatever needed to get as least a res visa, instead of an FMM.

There are alot of things in our life we want to do, want or where to live, or whatever and we can't. I know I always wanted a Chev Vet, but I was always to poor to buy one, neverless paying for the insurance for one. Just things to thing about.


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

From the reliable website of My Life in Mexico by Rolly Brook:

"Visitante is the common tourist visa that is issued as you enter the country and which you must turn in as you exit the country. It is the new replacement for the FMM. It is good for a maximum of 180 days. It cannot be renewed. If you wish to stay more than 180 days, you will have to return to the border, turn in your expiring Visitante and get a new one. There is a persistent myth that you cannot do that -- only one per year. That is bunk. "

(I realize that Rolly isn't quoting the law directly, but he has a habit of being very accurate since many people rely on his information for life decisions.)

Second thing: to obtain that temporary visa after four years of which you can get permanente without financials, you must prove income of at least $2100 a month and/or substantial investments.
Not all that easy, which would explain why many people on very limited but sufficient income 
would opt for the FMM dance. 

Instead of arguing about "respect", I think it would be better to stick to the actual laws allowing this or that. If someone has a law to back up an opinion, by all means quote it. Otherwise, it's just an opinion.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

Longford said:


> Mexico clearly defines who it wants to approve as residents, by the income and other standards clearly specified. Yes, people can break the law by sneaking back and forth across the border pretending to be a tourist. But such behavior should not be encouraged. If someone likes Mexico enough to move to the country then the should show some respect for Mexico, Mexicans and the nation as a whole. Walk up to the supervisor at any INM office and tell him/her you don't meet the requirements set by regulation/law but you've been living in Mexico 'under the radar' and want to continue doing that by having the INM office issue another permission for short-term entry not meant for residents. Then come back to report to us on what the answer is. I think most of us can assume what will happen, and that's why some people sneak around.


Do I smell sarcasm? With all due respect, several replies come to mind here: a few don't need to translate the above quote as, "illegally re-entering like the OP suggests might be a little ambiguous, but it's clearly criminal. We don't need any more poor people or criminals sneaking around this country. Just go to Arizona. You may still live in poverty, but arthritis won't hurt as much." (Okay, the Arizona part was prob a little indignation showing.)

Most of us disqualified by rather high (IMO) financial guidelines are probably not criminals -- hopefully not even undesirable rabble -- but rather people with varied experience who will still spend more than a minimum wage worker in the country, even though we fall under US poverty levels. Utilizing loopholes or ambiguities to stay longer than 6 mos. may not be a conventional, universally accepted alternative to FM2/3 but that doesn't preclude one's ability to add value to a society or community, and certainly does not make one a criminal. (Have you ever coughed up mordida? That IS explicitly against the law.)

The government seems to acknowledge there are people in my situation who do add value to our new community/country by making exceptions based on such attributes. I'm looking for a document that read like this: "getting residency can be achieved by adding 'a contribution to the country of Mexico...'" And, I'm not referring to the scientific/student/professional type of visa. I paraphrased, but that's the idea as I understood it. People can be assets without having 2-3k monthly, guaranteed lifetime income

By the way, my income requirement is actually around 3k per month if I've read and converted correctly. Because I'm also the sole custodial parent of my 7-year-old son, add 50% onto that 1900-2k usd. 

I also read about a "point system." I actually do not live entirely on SSD. SS also cuts my son a small check, but I earn a few dollars doing some freelance work, get a small amount of child support, and have a small (a little over 10k USD) savings account. Those that are not a "guaranteed, lifetime" sources of income, I didn't think I could count, however, under this "point system" it appears that may be incorrect. Possibly, one can use other income/assets to raise this "score" sufficiently. I'm researching this now, will find authoritative document or talk to my local consulate & post an answer when I find it.

Thanks to everyone for the input. Especially those who've shown understanding & support, or relayed experience/evidence that it can be done. You guys are awesome.


----------



## emilybcruz (Oct 29, 2013)

suegarn said:


> Americans complain about illegal Mexicans being in their country all the time, so why should Mexico turn a blind eye?


The term you are looking for is "undocumented immigrants." A person cannot be illegal. The word illegal is used to describe an action, and so calling an undocumented immigrant _an illegal _makes no more sense than calling a person who gets a speeding ticket _an illegal_. Both are examples of people who have done something illegal but labeling either of those people as "illegals" doesn't make sense.


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

Thank you for your thorough and honest post. Not everyone was giving you the benefit of having good intentions, which you obviously do in trying the various routes to permanent residency.
I hope you succeed in your search.

Not every contribution is a monetary one. Artists and writers, for instance, are not notorious for enriching a community with cash, but their other contributions are "priceless".
Buen Suerte.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

I entered Mexico through the Mexico City airport a few days ago. I happened to be the last person through immigration, and since there was no one else waiting in line I decided to be bold and ask the immigration officer this very question. I actually told him it was to help resolve an ongoing debate on an expat forum. He didn't seem surprised by my question, and said they know there is a lot of misinformation out there. He said Immigration is able to see in the computer system when somebody is staying 180 days, leaving, and returning shortly thereafter for another 180 days' stay. If Immigration sees this happening repeatedly, and that the person is always going to the same place, immigration might "investigate". If they determine the person is actually living here, they will "invite them to apply for residency".

I asked what happens if the person does not apply for residency and continues entering for 180 days. His reply: "No pasa nada porque no está fuera de la ley." ("Nothing happens because it is not outside the law") He indicated Mexico prefers the people who are living here apply for residency, but they are not breaking any law by exiting and reentering every 180 days.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

lagoloo said:


> Thank you for your thorough and honest post. Not everyone was giving you the benefit of having good intentions, which you obviously do in trying the various routes to permanent residency.
> I hope you succeed in your search.
> 
> Not every contribution is a monetary one. Artists and writers, for instance, are not notorious for enriching a community with cash, but their other contributions are "priceless".
> Buen Suerte.


Thank you, lagoloo. It's this kind of interaction that I'd hoped for when joining this community.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

ojosazules11 said:


> I entered Mexico through the Mexico City airport a few days ago. I happened to be the last person through immigration, and since there was no one else waiting in line I decided to be bold and ask the immigration officer this very question. I actually told him it was to help resolve an ongoing debate on an expat forum. He didn't seem surprised by my question, and said they know there is a lot of misinformation out there. He said Immigration is able to see in the computer system when somebody is staying 180 days, leaving, and returning shortly thereafter for another 180 days' stay. If Immigration sees this happening repeatedly, and that the person is always going to the same place, immigration might "investigate". If they determine the person is actually living here, they will "invite them to apply for residency".
> 
> I asked what happens if the person does not apply for residency and continues entering for 180 days. His reply: "No pasa nada porque no está fuera de la ley." ("Nothing happens because it is not outside the law") He indicated Mexico prefers the people who are living here apply for residency, but they are not breaking any law by exiting and reentering every 180 days.


Thank you, Ojoazules. It is not likely to end this discussion, but it is nice to have some actual data introduced into the conversation.


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Well Longford and suegarn, my challenge is still out there.

Just show me an official Mexican website that states a law or rule that folks can not do the 180 day border run to continue to live in Mexico...

Guess I was right about Longford disappearing from a thread after he is challenged to prove his statements on this subject.......


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

ojosazules11 said:


> I entered Mexico through the Mexico City airport a few days ago. I happened to be the last person through immigration, and since there was no one else waiting in line I decided to be bold and ask the immigration officer this very question. I actually told him it was to help resolve an ongoing debate on an expat forum. He didn't seem surprised by my question, and said they know there is a lot of misinformation out there. He said Immigration is able to see in the computer system when somebody is staying 180 days, leaving, and returning shortly thereafter for another 180 days' stay. If Immigration sees this happening repeatedly, and that the person is always going to the same place, immigration might "investigate". If they determine the person is actually living here, they will "invite them to apply for residency".
> 
> I asked what happens if the person does not apply for residency and continues entering for 180 days. His reply: "No pasa nada porque no está fuera de la ley." ("Nothing happens because it is not outside the law") He indicated Mexico prefers the people who are living here apply for residency, but they are not breaking any law by exiting and reentering every 180 days.


This is a winning answer. Both for its authoritative origin, and because it's what I hoped to hear. I wonder what that "invitation to apply for residency" would sound like. Although it might be phrased politely, that's not quite how I'd like to be invited to become a resident. 

This part of the question seems to be settled, at least in my mind. Now, that Southern border thing... 

Thank you so very much.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

chicois8 said:


> Well Longford and suegarn, my challenge is still out there........


Haha. You're more persistent than I am, as if anyone who knows me would have thought that possible.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

lagoloo said:


> They are not turning a blind eye if it is legal to get repeated tourist stays by leaving and re-entering the country.
> In this and many other cases, it's not a matter of becoming a "burden" to the Mexican government, especially since there is no welfare plan for expats and very little even for citizens. QUOTE]
> 
> Actually one of my sister in laws is a director, ex director lately, the PRI ousted her, and DIF where she worked lately has many welfare programs and even alcohol and drug addiction clinics and rehab buildings to stay at for worse cases, plus out patient psychiatric clinics, orphanages, homes for children and mothers at risk etc. Food distribution and seed distribution in poor rural áreas, assistence in agricultural technics etc. and many more welfare setups for the underprivalged, all for free.
> ...


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

"there is no *welfare plan *for expats and very little even for citizens. "(Lagoloo)

I don't think you interpreted my statement right. Do you know of any "welfare" in Mexico given to healthy adults under 70? Or to expats? I'm aware of the many charitable activities around. 
However, the subject under discussion on this thread was whether an adult foreigner would become a "burden" on Mexico, not whether there was help for Mexicans who have health problems, are elderly or are orphans.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

TundraGreen said:


> This is getting pretty old. A tourist permit is good for 180 days. After that you have to leave the country. The rules say nothing whatsoever about any waiting period before you can get another one. I was told by a representative of INM (Mexican immigration) that they do not care how many times people get a tourist permit.


Friday I visited the local Mexican consulate to try to clear up some questions that cropped up as this thread developed. I got a slightly different take from the woman I spoke with than when Ojoazules11 spoke to an official in Mexico, but here's what I learned:

TundraGreen: Regarding the length of time one must stay out of the country in order to be issued another FMM: The lady told me you have to stay outside of Mexico for 24 hours.  When I asked if she was joking a stern look crossed her pretty face as if to say "I am not a comedian."

Issuance of the 180 day tourist visa from a southern border: This was my primary concern; I was worried about coming back into Mexico repeatedly from Belize or Guatemala rather than crossing the U.S. border. Would being an American complicate my recrossing after a couple of trips back and forth? The answer I got was "no." As stated numerous times throughout this thread, getting a new 180 day visa, whether you're coming in from the north or south, can legally be done in perpetuity according to this official as well. She went so far as to say, "this is what we recommend to people." Unlike Ojoazulas11's conversation with the INM official in Mexico, she made it sound like they actually encourage people who fall under the financial guidelines to do just this -- without mentioning any investigation or potential invitation to apply for fm3.  Maybe she just liked me. It confirmed what most of you guys have stated repeatedly. I know this re-entry question has been been answered already, but the trip to the consulate clarified a couple of other things I'd read online.

Here's what else I learned. I'll try to be succinct:

Alternatives for those who can't meet the 2k (or more) per month guidelines exist. One can stay in the country legally and indefinitely using other options, but they're a little complex. 

The point system does exist, but it's designed for those who already have temp residency, and are applying for a permanent status. It does not apply to those entering with nothing other than a passport and the desire to stay for more than 6 months; this is how I understood it, at least. She said moving from temp to perm status entails a formula calculated using income, a savings account, real estate and other assets. Your score is then used to determine your qualification. I'm unable to provide anything more definitive. It doesn't apply to me (at least until I'm afforded fm3 status) so I asked very little about it, and moved on to the next question.

Most of you guys are already familiar with the Vinculo Familiar. It sounds like it applies to girlfriend/boyfriends, and other close relationships, but not restricted exclusively to "family." More like "familiar bonds"?? I wondered if a long-term friendship could meet this definition but I didn't ask her any questions about it.

When asked about gaining residency by being an asset to the country of Mexico, she pulled out some documents on work permits. They didn't sound as restrictive as I've read, but who knows. Moving on... again.

She also pointed out a clause in the requirements for temp residency WITHOUT a work permit that reads, "If a company/organization in Mexico is inviting the foreign national, the applicant can submit an original invitation letter..." there is a phrase about clergy, so I'm assuming it was like Peace Corps, religious, or other charity/volunteer type of activities. Key word is assuming. Also, there are some stringent guidelines, but probably no more stringent than any other type of temp/perm residency rules.

After this experience, my advice to anyone with questions about visas is go visit the consulate. It didn't take very long, and it will give you the most up to date info, without people like me adding their interpretation of the rules. These regulations change frequently and the financial bar has been set pretty high, but that doesn't mean you have to be "sneaky" and "fly under the radar" in order to stay inside Mexico legally for more than 180 days.

Peace!


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

A caveat: 
Consulates are under SRE; not INM and are often somewhat inaccurate or vague in their responses. You may get different answers ad different consulates.
Do not rely on what you understand about _the law_.
Be aware that the border agent in front of you will have the last word, according to his interpretation and mood. Never confront him. 
By the way; the FM3 is an obsolete term and has not existed for some time. Avoid reading older posts on INM topics. Things have changed in the last year or two.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

RVGRINGO said:


> A caveat:
> Consulates are under SRE; not INM and are often somewhat inaccurate or vague in their responses. You may get different answers ad different consulates.
> Do not rely on what you understand about _the law_.
> Be aware that the border agent in front of you will have the last word, according to his interpretation and mood. Never confront him.
> By the way; the FM3 is an obsolete term and has not existed for some time. Avoid reading older posts on INM topics. Things have changed in the last year or two.


Now that you mention it, the stamp on the documents I brought home do say SRE. Maybe that's why some of the restrictions seemed much more relaxed than I've read. What is SRE? 

Never mind the "what is SRE?" I got it. Thanks.


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

*FMM chalenge*



chicois8 said:


> Well Longford and suegarn, my challenge is still out there.
> 
> Just show me an official Mexican website that states a law or rule that folks can not do the 180 day border run to continue to live in Mexico...
> 
> Guess I was right about Longford disappearing from a thread after he is challenged to prove his statements on this subject.......



Again I repeat, where is your response longford, back to you regular pattern?


----------



## lagoloo (Apr 12, 2011)

Let's face it: sometimes we are dead wrong in an assertion and we realize it, so we don't feel like carrying on riding our dead horse, but I don't see any reason to rag someone who leaves the discussion before digging him or herself into a deeper hole. How about just letting it be?


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

lagoloo, I would but this is at least the 5th. or 6th. time he has made posters feel they are breaking the law and basically called them criminals, I then ask him to prove his statements and then he disappears until another poster brings up the FMM border run subject...All he has to do is admit he can not find any Mexican Gov. website that agrees with what his opinion..............


----------



## mexhapati (Nov 29, 2012)

the answer is yes....


----------



## grotton (Apr 20, 2012)

chicois8 said:


> lagoloo, I would but this is at least the 5th. or 6th. time he has made posters feel they are breaking the law and basically called them criminals, I then ask him to prove his statements and then he disappears until another poster brings up the FMM border run subject...All he has to do is admit he can not find any Mexican Gov. website that agrees with what his opinion..............


I have to agree. Sharing inaccurate information again and again, especially when directed at new members or first time posters, really is harmful to the integrity of the Forum. If someone has an opinion and presents it as such that is one thing. But providing incorrect information or opinion as fact shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## TooColdTooOften (Feb 27, 2014)

grotton said:


> I have to agree. Sharing inaccurate information again and again, especially when directed at new members or first time posters, really is harmful to the integrity of the Forum. If someone has an opinion and presents it as such that is one thing. But providing incorrect information or opinion as fact shouldn't be tolerated.


I agree, but there was another subtle component. I think that was my first post, and one response led to me to feel embarrassed. It felt like being called an undesirable miscreant (which may be a fair assessment), although I don't presume to know that was the intent. When those who spoke up—if not on my behalf, specifically—on behalf of everyone who may now have to run to a border twice a year, it made a real difference.

When uncertain, I like to include "seems to be" and "looks as if" because I don't know the answers, especially on this forum. (But mostly just because it's an easy out when I get called on my BS.) Anyway, the answer I got from the consulate was exactly in line with the other 99 percent of answers, so it's all good. I find this to be an excellent forum, with a ton of great info, suggestions, and very helpful people. People sincerely trying to help others by sharing their experience and knowledge.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

TooColdTooOften said:


> I agree, but there was another subtle component. I think that was my first post, and one response led to me to feel embarrassed. It felt like being called an undesirable miscreant (which may be a fair assessment), although I don't presume to know that was the intent. When those who spoke up—if not on my behalf, specifically—on behalf of everyone who may now have to run to a border twice a year, it made a real difference.
> 
> When uncertain, I like to include "seems to be" and "looks as if" because I don't know the answers, especially on this forum. (But mostly just because it's an easy out when I get called on my BS.) Anyway, the answer I got from the consulate was exactly in line with the other 99 percent of answers, so it's all good. I find this to be an excellent forum, with a ton of great info, suggestions, and very helpful people. People sincerely trying to help others by sharing their experience and knowledge.


Speaking for the Mexico Forum Mod Squad (me and Tundra Green), we're happy that that one unkind response didn't cause you to flee the forum, never to return! And thanks for the good words about this forum, which owes its excellence to the good will and intelligence of its members.


----------

