# any FMM changes?



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

I know many expats that live in Mexico with an FMM because they can not afford the old FM3 status and have to do border runs every 6 months to continue to live in Mexico, my question is have there been any changes for the tourist card (FMM) along with the other new changes?


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

chicois8 said:


> I know many expats that live in Mexico with an FMM because they can not afford the old FM3 status and have to do border runs every 6 months to continue to live in Mexico, my question is have there been any changes for the tourist card (FMM) along with the other new changes?


On another forum there was an interview with a high ranking INM official who was asked if people would still be able to live on tourist cards, renewing every 6 months. He said no changes, still ok to do so.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Yes, there are income requirements for the 180 day visa.

The thread on the changes has links to the new laws. They are in Spanish (of course!) but there's a link on the right side of the page for translation into English.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> Yes, there are income requirements for the 180 day visa.
> 
> The thread on the changes has links to the new laws. They are in Spanish (of course!) but there's a link on the right side of the page for translation into English.


I believe the 180 day visa that requires income verification is for those who will be working. Haven't seen requirements for tourists.


----------



## kazslo (Jun 7, 2010)

My family came for a visit last week via air. Same fmm sheet, same process, valid for 180 days.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

chicois8 said:


> I know many expats that live in Mexico with an FMM because they can not afford the old FM3 status and have to do border runs every 6 months to continue to live in Mexico, my question is have there been any changes for the tourist card (FMM) along with the other new changes?


There's another one or two discussions talking about the recent rule/law changes with some excellent information and links to source information and analysis.

It's never been "legal" for someone to _live/reside _ in Mexico beyond 180-days on the FMM or it's predecessor FM-T, ... to the best of my knowledge. People who do that are _mojados_, for the most part. 

They tend to be people who can't meet the requirements to apply for and receive a residency visa. And if they couldn't meet the "old" requirements, they'll be further distressed by the newer, higher income/wealth/asset limits. Others are just too lazyto apply for a proper visa, and they're disrespectful of Mexico and Mexicans. 

Yes, people do live in Mexico on the FMM and they sneak back and forth across the border getting a new one every six months. And, yes, some INM agents look the other way. But, I believe it's not something the law and regulations intend or ever intended to permit (that's why the government tells us the FMM is applicable for persons intending to be in Mexico less than six months and why it has created residency visa classifications). 

If someone is a resident in the country and intends to remain living in the country beyond 180-days, applying for the proper residency visa is what should be done.


----------



## joaquinx (Jul 3, 2010)

Longford said:


> There's another one or two discussions talking about the recent rule/law changes with some excellent information and links to source information and analysis.
> 
> It's never been "legal" for someone to _live/reside _ in Mexico beyond 180-days on the FMM or it's predecessor FM-T, ... to the best of my knowledge. People who do that are _mojados_, for the most part.
> 
> ...


What about the people who MET the old requirements but cannot meet the new ones. From reading your post, they should leave the country and reside somewhere else.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> There's another one or two discussions talking about the recent rule/law changes with some excellent information and links to source information and analysis.
> 
> It's never been "legal" for someone to _live/reside _ in Mexico beyond 180-days on the FMM or it's predecessor FM-T, ... to the best of my knowledge. People who do that are _mojados_, for the most part.
> 
> ...


A lot of generalizations in this post that may be accurately applied to some people, but probably are not accurate for everyone.

Can you point to some evidence that back-to-back visitor permits are illegal? You argue on the basis of the government's "intentions", but one could equally argue that, if the government did not want people to use visitor permits end-to-end, they would have put time limits on their use. For example restricting people to one visitor permit per year.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

joaquinx said:


> What about the people who MET the old requirements but cannot meet the new ones. From reading your post, they should leave the country and reside somewhere else.


Well, we don't yet know the answer to that $64,000 question ... do we? For some people needing to renew/qualify in the coming weeks and month or two(particularly those who think they no longer meet the income/asset test) ... it's certainly a stressful time. As each day passes it seems to me that we're learning more about how the regs are being applied. But, as you know from the discussion across the Mexico www ... there's inconsistencies. I like attorney Spencer's advice over on the Chapala board ... who isn't offering too much in the way of firm/strong advice, until he's processed at least 20 visa applications. He's a smart guy. I do think some of the people now in Mexico who don't own property and who can't meet the income/asset requirements will have to leave for elsewhere. But another part of my brain tells me that INM will find a way to accommodate "special cases." Even then, and after any special consideration ... some people will either circumvent the law or the intent of the law/regs and live illegally or on a tourist card.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

TundraGreen said:


> A lot of generalizations in this post that may be accurately applied to some people, but probably are not accurate for everyone.
> 
> Can you point to some evidence that back-to-back visitor permits are illegal? You argue on the basis of the government's "intentions", but one could equally argue that, if the government did not want people to use visitor permits end-to-end, they would have put time limits on their use. For example restricting people to one visitor permit per year.


All of the discussion I've seen from the government and in written documents over time is that the FMM and new category, whatever it's called, is intended for persons staying in Mexico for no more than 180 days. The FMM or tourist card is intended for tourists. Someone who establishes residence in Mexico isn't a tourist. Let's not kid ourselves. Those folks on FMMs living in Mexico know they're acting against the regs and that's why they sneak around getting new FMMs when their old ones expire. I've suggested previously that people living on FMMs tell the INM agent at the border, the next time they enter, or at the airports, that they live permanently in Mexico and have been living for an extended period of time and they want another FMM to continue to live in Mexico, not as a tourist but as a resident. And then to report back to us the response they get. I think I know the response almost everyone of them will get. And it won't be what they want to hear.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

Longford. I have had 4 different INM officers in three different cities tell me to live or stay as long as I want each year in Mexico on as many FMTs or FMMs as I want so your theory is just that, theory. Experience tells it all here. Alan


----------



## DNP (May 3, 2011)

AlanMexicali said:


> Longford. I have had 4 different INM officers in three different cities tell me to live or stay as long as I want each year in Mexico on as many FMTs or FMMs as I want so your theory is just that, theory. Experience tells it all here. Alan


I suggest you familiarize yourself with the new reg's, just in case.

Northern Virginia, USA, and SMA, MEXICO


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

*FMM Visitante*



DNP said:


> I suggest you familiarize yourself with the new reg's, just in case.
> 
> Northern Virginia, USA, and SMA, MEXICO


I am on a Residente Temporal and was talking about over the last years. Alan


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Wrongford states:

" The FMM or tourist card is intended for tourists. Someone who establishes residence in Mexico isn't a tourist. Let's not kid ourselves."

If this was true why would the Mexican Government let tourists on the old FMM purchase real estate and deposit monies in a Mexican bank, just look at the front of the old FMM, it is printed right there..

I originally asked this question only because I was crossing into Mexico for 4 months and did not want any surprises this morning...

Although I am not a full time ex-pat I am spending 8 months of the year in Mexico at 2 residences ( one near Puerto Vallarta for the winter and one near San Miguel de Allende for the summer) I never saw a reason for the FM3 since both places were purchased with a FMM, one with a fidecomiso and the other with an escatura.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

I think if the U.S. can let most illegals slip through to pick the crops, etc then Mexico can certainly let poor Gringos who pay their way live on tourist cards(tongue firmly in cheek). It does grate, that word illegal. And absolutely nothing but opinion stated here as to what is illegal about living on tourist cards. I'm guessing it's one of two things...either some that qualify can't stand the thought of sharing "their" Mexico with those less worthy, or they don't like that they went to the trouble of meeting all the requirements, only to see others breeze through on tourist cards. Or both!


----------



## kazslo (Jun 7, 2010)

Longford said:


> There's another one or two discussions talking about the recent rule/law changes with some excellent information and links to source information and analysis.
> 
> It's never been "legal" for someone to _live/reside _ in Mexico beyond 180-days on the FMM or it's predecessor FM-T, ... to the best of my knowledge. People who do that are _mojados_, for the most part.
> 
> ...



When a person (at least from the US and Canada), who doesn't have a visa, wants to enter Mexico, here's how the process works:

You fill out an FMM and hand it to the immigration officer. That officer will consider whether you meet the requirements based on your answers to any questions he/she has and your answers on the form, and either approve or deny. If you are approved, the officer can grant you a stay of up to 180 days. At the end of 180 days, you must leave the country. After leaving the country, you must start this process over in order to re-enter Mexico. If you stay longer than the stay marked on your FMM, THEN you are in the country illegally.

Nowhere in the law does it state the amount of time you have to spend outside of Mexico or how many visas you can be issued in any time frame. So whats "illegal" about that? Or why do you phrase it that people are "sneaking" across the border? They aren't sneaking, they are entering legally, receiving a visa, then turning that visa in upon departure (as the fmm does not allow multiple entries). A "tourist" isn't a person who wants to stay in a hotel for a week, even though that is what your common definition might be. Nobody is sneaking. Nobody is looking the other way. The law is the law - you intend to enter, officer approves or denies, you leave by the end of your visa. The law doesn't say the visa is for a person who intends to stay less than 180 days and then not return for a year or whatever timeframe is approved by Longford. It says you can stay for the amount of days the inm officer writes on your FMM (not to exceed 180 days), and then you must leave.

I agree with you that if someone intends to live here long term, then a proper visa should be applied for. Those who don't will suffer twice a year trips out of the country and do have the risk that they could be denied entry, because during each entry you are essentially applying for a visa.


----------



## chicois8 (Aug 8, 2009)

Kalso states:

"I agree with you that if someone intends to live here long term, then a proper visa should be applied for. Those who don't will suffer twice a year trips out of the country and do have the risk that they could be denied entry, because during each entry you are essentially applying for a visa."

The only problem I have seen is where single older women are in a situation where after a divorce or whatever receive 1/2 of there husbands SS check and now have to live on less that $500 USD a month which is impossible in the good ole USA for them to live a life and not be on the street...I know at least 3 Americans who live OK in Mexico on a $430 income, so if they hop a bus every 180 days or so I have no problem with it...as I wrote earlier : Longford + wrong = *Wrongford*


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

chicois8 said:


> The only problem I have seen is where single older women are in a situation where after a divorce or whatever receive 1/2 of there husbands SS check and now have to live on less that $500 USD a month which is impossible in the good ole USA for them to live a life and not be on the street...I know at least 3 Americans who live OK in Mexico on a $430 income, so if they hop a bus every 180 days or so I have no problem with it...as I wrote earlier : Longford + wrong = *Wrongford*


I can't imagine living in Mexico on less than $500 a month, and I'm not an extravagant person. How on earth do these 3 Americans you mention manage it?


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Isla Verde said:


> I can't imagine living in Mexico on less than $500 a month, and I'm not an extravagant person. How on earth do these 3 Americans you mention manage it?


Roommates, living in small towns, staying out of tourist areas, living a very simple life, reading for entertainment, walking everywhere, cooking at home, living on beans and rice, etc. Might not sound fun but if one is determined not to return to the States and work one can get used to anything.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

vantexan said:


> Roommates, living in small towns, staying out of tourist areas, living a very simple life, reading for entertainment, walking everywhere, cooking at home, living on beans and rice, etc. Might not sound fun but if one is determined not to return to the States and work one can get used to anything.


You mean actually sharing a room, or maybe a very small apartment? It doesn't sound like fun or even much of a life, but I suppose it's better than trying to live on less than $500 a month in the US.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Isla Verde said:


> You mean actually sharing a room, or maybe a very small apartment? It doesn't sound like fun or even much of a life, but I suppose it's better than trying to live on less than $500 a month in the US.


Have to figure someone with that small a SS check wasn't a highly paid worker, or maybe the spouse of one who wasn't highly paid. So returning to the States means working(assuming physically able to work)a so so poorly paid job with just the SS check to supplement it. In other words not any better off, living most likely in an area where a car is a necessity. In Mexico one can live a simple life in an area with great scenery, mild weather, and affordable transportation. Was reading a post about Comitan, Chiapas. Guy was passing through town, asked taxi driver what a room with a kitchen would cost. He said around 1500 Pesos a month in the centro, 1000 Pesos in outlying neighborhoods. Comitan has a Walmart, Sam's Club, Cinepolis multiplex, a beautiful zocalo with free wi-fi broadcasted in it. It has a very mild climate at just over 5000', and is surrounded by beautiful country with waterfalls everywhere. And is less than a hour from Guatemala for easy 6 month renewals, a concern for someone with very low income. Have read several posts about people being approached by tourist police in Comitan who bent over backwards to show them where motels and restaurants were. All in all one can be poor in Mexico and still have a pretty nice life without giving up too much.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

vantexan said:


> Have to figure someone with that small a SS check wasn't a highly paid worker, or maybe the spouse of one who wasn't highly paid. So returning to the States means working(assuming physically able to work)a so so poorly paid job with just the SS check to supplement it. In other words not any better off, living most likely in an area where a car is a necessity. In Mexico one can live a simple life in an area with great scenery, mild weather, and affordable transportation. Was reading a post about Comitan, Chiapas. Guy was passing through town, asked taxi driver what a room with a kitchen would cost. He said around 1500 Pesos a month in the centro, 1000 Pesos in outlying neighborhoods. Comitan has a Walmart, Sam's Club, Cinepolis multiplex, a beautiful zocalo with free wi-fi broadcasted in it. It has a very mild climate at just over 5000', and is surrounded by beautiful country with waterfalls everywhere. And is less than a hour from Guatemala for easy 6 month renewals, a concern for someone with very low income. Have read several posts about people being approached by tourist police in Comitan who bent over backwards to show them where motels and restaurants were. All in all one can be poor in Mexico and still have a pretty nice life without giving up too much.


It's certainly better than living in the States and having to supplement a meager SS check by being a greeter at Walmart. Reading about these women making it in Mexico on so little money makes me more grateful than ever for my two modest pension checks and my ability to supplement my income with teaching and translating. And the usually benevolent weather makes every day feel like a holiday!


----------



## ValRomx (Nov 12, 2012)

I wouldn't call traveling by air and going through customs and immigration on both sides of the border "sneaking around".


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ValRomx said:


> I wouldn't call traveling by air and going through customs and immigration on both sides of the border "sneaking around".


If this is what you've been doing .. then next time you do it follow my suggestion and let us know the reaction you get from INM:

Ask to speak with the supervisor of INM at the border crossing point or at the airport. Tell the supervisor you live in Mexico, you're not a tourist. And that you have been living in Mexico solely with the FMM, etc. and that you want to continue to live in Mexico and that you have crossed into the USA and back again into Mexico just to get another FMM to live on for another six months.

I'm truly interested in learning the reaction to your request.

Thanks.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

Longford said:


> If this is what you've been doing .. then next time you do it follow my suggestion and let us know the reaction you get from INM:
> 
> Ask to speak with the supervisor of INM at the border crossing point or at the airport. Tell the supervisor you live in Mexico, you're not a tourist. And that you have been living in Mexico solely with the FMM, etc. and that you want to continue to live in Mexico and that you have crossed into the USA and back again into Mexico just to get another FMM to live on for another six months.
> 
> ...


I think that people who have been living in Mexico solely on a series of FMMs have been doing so in a sort of "gray area", as far as Mexican immigration law is concerned.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Longford said:


> If this is what you've been doing .. then next time you do it follow my suggestion and let us know the reaction you get from INM:
> 
> Ask to speak with the supervisor of INM at the border crossing point or at the airport. Tell the supervisor you live in Mexico, you're not a tourist. And that you have been living in Mexico solely with the FMM, etc. and that you want to continue to live in Mexico and that you have crossed into the USA and back again into Mexico just to get another FMM to live on for another six months.
> 
> ...


Why should they, truly?

I understand that you disapprove of people living in MX on back to back 180 day visas. But if it's not specifically stated that it's not legal--it's legal. So why bring attention to oneself? 

There are so many things done in this world that are perfectly legal, yet immoral. The "right" of credit card companies to charge 30% interest, and payday loan companies to charge ten times that comes to mind.

Living peacefully in a place where a small income can allow a person to do so gracefully is neither illegal nor immoral, in my mind.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

mickisue1 said:


> Why should they, truly?
> 
> I understand that you disapprove of people living in MX on back to back 180 day visas. But if it's not specifically stated that it's not legal--it's legal. So why bring attention to oneself?
> 
> ...


:focus: The discussion isn't about things other than the INM regs, and in this discussion the tourist card. 

If it's truly legal, which I believe the facts show it isn't, why be fearful of clearly stating what you're doing. Why would someone be punished for doing what's permitted? They won't. 

Just like we understand what pornography is or isn't when we view something, we know what a tourist is or isn't. Credentials issued for tourism purposes are just that. The residency visas are appropriate for people residing in Mexico. And we all understand what "residence" means. We should.

I'm open to being convinced/shown otherwise, on the tourist card issue. But thus far everthing I see tells me what I've already stated.

Thanks.


----------



## ValRomx (Nov 12, 2012)

Longford, 

I don't live in Mexico, I'm a tourist here. I have no bank account in Mexico. I rent an apartment for the time that I'm here. That is what my visa allows. My home address is in the United States. My visa requires that I leave before 180 days expire, which I do. Border officials have my history of border crossings in front of them each time I leave the country and return, so if either nation had an issue with this pattern, they could easily prevent me from landing and staying. 

Other countries have the same policies, including the Schengen Area. Some countries are more or less restrictive regarding this policy. I have friends in Thailand who must do as I do, so they go to Laos or Vietnam or Singapore or Malaysia to satisfy Thailand's requirements. They spend less time in those countries than I spend NoB.

If you have concerns about Mexico's policy, perhaps you should make the inquiry.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ValRomx said:


> Longford,
> 
> I don't live in Mexico, I'm a tourist here. I have no bank account in Mexico. I rent an apartment for the time that I'm here. That is what my visa allows. My home address is in the United States. My visa requires that I leave before 180 days expire, which I do. Border officials have my history of border crossings in front of them each time I leave the country and return, so if either nation had an issue with this pattern, they could easily prevent me from landing and staying.
> 
> ...


So, it seems, from what you're telling us ... that you're one of the people I've referred to. You're living in Mexico on a tourist card. My view of that is if people like Mexico so much they can show that affection by legalizing their status. I think I understand the regs and law and don't have concerns about my status. I've always behaved responsibly. I don't think everyone in this discussion, the entirety of the discussion, can say the same thing however. Best of luck. And, don't get caught if you are one of _those people_!


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Longford said:


> :focus: The discussion isn't about things other than the INM regs, and in this discussion the tourist card.
> 
> If it's truly legal, which I believe the facts show it isn't....


What facts? Can you point to anything in print that states it's illegal? Mexico just went to a lot of trouble to publish a whole bunch of regs concerning immigration. Surely they address it somewhere?


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Isla Verde said:


> I think that people who have been living in Mexico solely on a series of FMMs have been doing so in a sort of "gray area", as far as Mexican immigration law is concerned.


The reason they sneak around and don't tell the truth to INM about what they're doing ... is that they know what they're doing is wrong. They're not entitled to be in Mexico when they do that. That's my opinion.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Disagreeing with someone doesn't require that one speak rudely to him/her.

Longford has made a lot of excellent contributions to this forum. I happen to disagree with him on this issue, but I don't recall ever seeing a "tirade" from him.

I'd appreciate if the personal stuff could be limited to thanks for good information, and the angry or snotty stuff left off.


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> Disagreeing with someone doesn't require that one speak rudely to him/her.
> 
> Longford has made a lot of excellent contributions to this forum. I happen to disagree with him on this issue, but I don't recall ever seeing a "tirade" from him.
> 
> I'd appreciate if the personal stuff could be limited to thanks for good information, and the angry or snotty stuff left off.


He's called people living on tourist cards "scofflaws", says it's illegal(while not offering proof), that they're all sneaking around, etc. You seem to be selective in your support of sticking to discussing issues without opinions that might "blindside" someone. Imagine someone new coming on here, finding out that he doesn't meet requirements for residency, and finding out that his living in Oaxaca on his tourist card is "illegal". That he's flouting the law and if found out might be subjected to all kinds of unpleasantness. This forum is about living in Mexico, and every avenue available should be explored for the benefit of those who very much want to live there, and are trying to find out how. Longford has already made it clear in his opinion anyone who has been living in Mexico legally having met all past requirements but suddenly doesn't have sufficient income to qualify for the new requirements must leave the country. And too bad if they don't like it. As long as he persists with this line of reasoning, then someone must give an opposing view for the sake of anyone new to this forum who may think their dream of living in Mexico isn't possible.


----------



## ValRomx (Nov 12, 2012)

Longford said:


> So, it seems, from what you're telling us ... that you're one of the people I've referred to. You're living in Mexico on a tourist card. My view of that is if people like Mexico so much they can show that affection by legalizing their status. I think I understand the regs and law and don't have concerns about my status. I've always behaved responsibly. I don't think everyone in this discussion, the entirety of the discussion, can say the same thing however. Best of luck. And, don't get caught if you are one of _those people_!



Longford, 

Here's a question that someone (not me, I'm not in Sinaloa) posed to INM in Mazatlán in advance of a meeting tomorrow with INM, Aduana y Hacienda. INM's one-word response follows.

Pregunta: ¿Si tengo una visa de turista puedo salir del país a los 180 días y regresar al día siguiente con otra visa de 180 días?

Respuesta: Si. 

So, would you please advise the Mexican government that it is not following the policies that you would like it to follow?


----------



## Belizegirl (Oct 21, 2010)

My family have been living in MX for two plus years. We go back and forth every 180 days, be it to Belize or Canada. In between to the Border near Chetumal to have our renew our truck permit. 

Are we living in a "gray area"? Possibly, however, we always tell the truth that we live here when going through the border.

We are not trying to evade or sneak through the income requirements for living here. We are, thankfully, more than able to meet the requirements. 

For us, it has been figuring out the necessary documents needed for one of our children and being told constantly and consistently to wait for the new regulations to be implemented.

I am sure that there are many people just trying to figure out which way to go. With the new regulations, I do have friends wondering if they will have to go.

In any event, I think it is quite harsh to judge people who are living here on a tourist card, and being honest. You never know what the story may be behind it.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ValRomx said:


> Longford,
> 
> Here's a question that someone (not me, I'm not in Sinaloa) posed to INM in Mazatlán in advance of a meeting tomorrow with INM, Aduana y Hacienda. INM's one-word response follows.
> 
> ...


Read the FMM form. Look at it carefully. There are various categories for which persons are entitled to enter Mexico .. on the FMM. For 180 days or less depending on the category. None of the categories is for people residing in Mexico on the FMM. People can play all the word games they want. The fact remains, a tourist isn't a resident. The government wouldn't be pressing residency requirements if it intended residents to stay in the country on a tourist visa for which the requirements are minimal. :juggle:


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Longford said:


> Read the FMM form. Look at it carefully. There are various categories for which persons are entitled to enter Mexico .. on the FMM. For 180 days or less depending on the category. None of the categories is for people residing in Mexico on the FMM. People can play all the word games they want. The fact remains, a tourist isn't a resident. The government wouldn't be pressing residency requirements if it intended residents to stay in the country on a tourist visa for which the requirements are minimal. :juggle:


The FMM allows people to stay up to 180 days and the only rule that must be observed is that at the end of the 180 days you must exit the country. There is no rule anywhere stating you can only stay 180 days in a 12 month period nor is there one prohibiting you from reentering after you exit although I've read you must wait 72 hrs before reentry(don't know if that's true as I've also read that people turn right around and immediately reenter). There are most likely thousands, if not 10's of thousands, who do this and people have been doing this for decades. If Mexico wasn't ok with it why haven't they spelled it out in the regs? Certainly they know it's happening.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

vantexan said:


> The FMM allows people to stay up to 180 days and the only rule that must be observed is that at the end of the 180 days you must exit the country. There is no rule anywhere stating you can only stay 180 days in a 12 month period nor is there one prohibiting you from reentering after you exit although I've read you must wait 72 hrs before reentry(don't know if that's true as I've also read that people turn right around and immediately reenter). There are most likely thousands, if not 10's of thousands, who do this and people have been doing this for decades. If Mexico wasn't ok with it why haven't they spelled it out in the regs? Certainly they know it's happening.


I'm assuming you missed this:



> Read the FMM form. Look at it carefully. There are various categories for which persons are entitled to enter Mexico .. on the FMM. For 180 days or less depending on the category. None of the categories is for people residing in Mexico on the FMM. People can play all the word games they want. The fact remains, a tourist isn't a resident. The government wouldn't be pressing residency requirements if it intended residents to stay in the country on a tourist visa for which the requirements are minimal.


None of us here is an attorney experienced in the laws and regulations of Mexico. We hold opinons based on our experiences or assumptions. And each is entitled to express an opinion as long as we do so in accordance with the terms of participation of this website. So don't worry so much about what other people say. Read the information and take from it what you think is valuable.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

Try to be adult and dont insult or verbally abuse on the forum - it doesnt help your causes, it makes you look like the "bad guy" ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU START USING OTHER POSTERS REAL NAMES AND JUST SLUR AND INSULT THEM - SHAME ON YOU!!!! So if you write something personally insulting, think BEFORE you press submit!!! 

Jo xxx


----------



## tepetapan (Sep 30, 2010)

chicois8 said:


> Thats the MO, start by friendly nice answers then the mad Wrongford comes out...


 The colder and more miserable it gets in Chicago the more negative he gets. Just wait until February when he starts burning the Mexican flag on the street in front of Macy´s !
Cold and bitter, just like the winters but come spring all is well....for 4 months.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

*Mexican attitude.*

"The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución mexicana) was a major armed struggle that started in 1910, with an uprising led by Francisco I. Madero against longtime autocrat Porfirio Díaz, and lasted for the better part of a decade until around 1920. Over time the Revolution changed from a revolt against the established order to a multi-sided civil war. This armed conflict is often categorized as the most important sociopolitical event in Mexico and one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th century." from Wikipedia

In the interest of clarifying a misconception about what Longford sees as a legalistic problem I think experienced expats know or are finding out slowly, what attitude most Mexicans take in regards to gov´t. rules and regulations if there are conflicts in these rules that are inconvenient to others. Most public schooling beats to death the above part of 20th century Mexican history and the underlying theme that gov´t. is there to control before the revolution and not for the best interest of the citizens, in general. After 65 years of PRI domination things have been seen as the longtime privilaged class ruled and governed with other interests being slowly added to this social democracy. Even the ruling class were schooled to agree in part with the popular version of what society should be responsible for and to whom therefore a social democracy was formed here.

Now if a rule such as FMM tourist cards interfers with someone the most likely route most Mexicans will take is to ingnore it for the benefit of the person being affected, I feel. So when it is good for ALL it is good. If it is inconvenient then it is bad and not worthy of respect by many who see the gov´t. as partly a nuisance at times.

When you actually live here and communicate in Spanish you also will get to know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable Longford, so just hold on until that time comes. Sincerly Alan


----------



## ValRomx (Nov 12, 2012)

Longford said:


> Read the FMM form. Look at it carefully. There are various categories for which persons are entitled to enter Mexico .. on the FMM. For 180 days or less depending on the category. None of the categories is for people residing in Mexico on the FMM. :juggle:


Longford - 

I have looked at it carefully and I always do on the flight to Mexico to determine if changes have taken place. Please tell me, exactly where does it forbid anyone from leaving the country and re-entering it?

I can live here for 180 days. I am not entitled to the benefits which someone holding a permit such as Temporal or Permanente is entitled. Banks won't allow me to open a checking account. I cannot ship my furnishings into the country. I do not have access to IMSS or INAPAM, etc.

The law requires that I leave the country. I do. The law allows me to re-enter the country, and I do after some period of time, usually a few weeks. I may or may not return to the same city or pueblo. None of this is illegal, none of it is cheating the system. It is not playing games. It is not unethical.

It is simply that which the law allows and that which the government enforces. 

It is what the government allows me to do if I want to live here. 

I have done it for a relatively short time, however, I know people who have lived here for many years complying with this policy. If the government of Mexico likes the arrangement, why can't you leave it alone? 

I cannot read the Mexican government's mind as to why it made the changes it did to Mexico's immigration policies. Maybe it was to parallel Argentina's, maybe it was to get even with the USA for building the fence, maybe it was to enable a class of immigrant who could better fend for itself and not demand services of the state. Maybe it was in anticipation of a reverse migration pattern which it wanted to slow. Maybe it was to make things more equitable. I don't know. 

What I do know is that the law - as before - enables a person to stay/live/reside within Mexico for 180 days. Then they must leave. Then they can return.

This is similar to one having had an FM3, except the FM3 required one to leave after five years if one did not apply for an FM2. The FM3 holder would have had to leave and, if he or she wanted to continue residing in Mexico, return and apply for a new FM3.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ValRomX ... we're not going to agree on this. I'll reiterate once again, though ... that the classs of persons entitled to be in Mexico on an FMM are clearly stated on the face of the FMM. And living in Mexico isn't one of them. Mexico has clearly defined the standards to be met and visas to be applied for and obtained by people in the classes for which the FMM does not apply. :amen: Have a great day!


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

ValRomx said:


> Longford -
> 
> I have looked at it carefully and I always do on the flight to Mexico to determine if changes have taken place. Please tell me, exactly where does it forbid anyone from leaving the country and re-entering it?
> 
> ...


This week a top immigration official was answering questions at a meeting in San Miguel de Allende and the specific question was asked. "Can I live in Mexico on an FMM and every 180 days, go to the border, cross over for 1 day and return to get another FMM for another 180 days?" The answer was SI! 

This is what I was told before by immigration and now it has not changed with the new rules in place.


----------



## kazslo (Jun 7, 2010)

Longford said:


> ValRomX ... we're not going to agree on this. I'll reiterate once again, though ... that the classs of persons entitled to be in Mexico on an FMM are clearly stated on the face of the FMM. And living in Mexico isn't one of them. Mexico has clearly defined the standards to be met and visas to be applied for and obtained by people in the classes for which the FMM does not apply. :amen: Have a great day!


So whats a tourist? You've spent pages worth of name calling and have yet to site a legal source of your information. You've told us what a tourist isn't. So, who is a tourist then?


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

What's going on with this thread? I can't get on page 5.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Isla Verde said:


> What's going on with this thread? I can't get on page 5.


Don't you have the EF secret decoder ring?


----------



## vantexan (Sep 4, 2011)

Longford said:


> I'm assuming you missed this:
> 
> 
> 
> None of us here is an attorney experienced in the laws and regulations of Mexico. We hold opinons based on our experiences or assumptions. And each is entitled to express an opinion as long as we do so in accordance with the terms of participation of this website. So don't worry so much about what other people say. Read the information and take from it what you think is valuable.


I'm glad you are stating it's your opinion rather than fact as you called it before. Guess what? I'm moving to Bolivia, which clearly defines for Americans that they can only stay 90 days in a calendar year on a tourist visa. To stay longer I must get a 30 day special purpose visa before entering the country and then follow quite a few steps for residency. It'll be worth it in the long run, and everything is clear and upfront so I don't have to worry about being an illegal scofflaw. Vaya con Dios!


----------



## cuylers5746 (Mar 19, 2012)

*Absurd New Immigration Law*

Makes me even wonder why the Mexican Government even wastes the money to have INM Offices and staff?

Seems like a complete illogical waste of time, money and resources. I mean here make a radically different Immigration Law with all kinds of restrictions on people that have lived here for many years, contributed greatly to their society, helped employ their people - and on the other hand you have no restrictions for wet backs from all those Latin American Countries to the south of you. Just show up and claim Refugee Status, oh and will give you expensive Health Care for Free (which they can't afford to do), too.

I guess there is a certain class of people in all societies that love to chase their tail around and around and around?

Think about how absurd it all is? Let the barn door wide open to the south - come in who every you are, drug smuggler, drug addict, convict, what ever. But, no you foreigners from the north we're going to put lots of restrictions on you? Why? Maybe you'll continue to being a valuable addition to our society, maybe still employ a number of our citizens to make their life better, oh and enrich our society.

You wonder why people as they get older more experienced working with Governments(s), that they become more conservative?

The more I read and hear about this new law, I feel it's intended to make the Mexican Immigration law more up to date with UN guidlines, and also a parting shot by Pres. Calderon at us Gringos and other Norteanos. I don't blame him for being bitter at Obama - he lied to him. Early on in his administration while on a visit to Mexico, Obama promissed Immigration Reform. He did nothing even criticized in the Presidential Campaign by Romney for this. Just the opposite I heard this week on CNN, that Pres. Obama was responsible for deporting more Illegals than any other modern President. Oh, and how about that scandal of letting Govt. agents export automatic rifles illegally from US to Mexico across the border then loosing track of them - and resulting in many more Mexican deaths in the Drug Cartel Wars. I'll never forget the expression on Hillary Clinton's face when after all the fuss over the first incident, it actually happened again. Oh, and Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder .."knew nothing..". No wonder President Calderon was livid, but take it out on our Govt. not us!


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

Cuyler, from my understanding of other countries, it's not so much that they want to get back at NOBers, it's that they figure that first world countries can and should take care of their own, and if they are in better economic circumstances than their geographical neighbors, they need to help their people.

It's unhelpful to look at things from a "You'll get yours" POV, rather, there are actually governments that encourage the poor and needy to come to their countries. PSSST: the US used to be one, but no more. CF: the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

In Italy, France and Spain (probably other countries in the EU, as well, but I've not been there) you see open air markets in every small to large city. The owners of the stalls, or blankets on the ground, in many cases, are undocumented aliens from the middle east, from Africa, from former satellites of the USSR. 

They are tolerated more than undocumented aliens from the US, Canada or the UK, because it's believed that they need a chance to make it, where we come from wealthy countries, and should be able to make it ourselves.

The fact that the US allows its elderly to live in poverty is OUR crime, not Mexico's.


----------



## jojo (Sep 20, 2007)

> In Italy, France and Spain (probably other countries in the EU, as well, but I've not been there) you see open air markets in every small to large city. The owners of the stalls, or blankets on the ground, in many cases, are undocumented aliens from the middle east, from Africa, from former satellites of the USSR.
> 
> They are tolerated more than undocumented aliens from the US, Canada or the UK, because it's believed that they need a chance to make it, where we come from wealthy countries, and should be able to make it ourselves.


 I'll just point out, (cos as you admit, you've not been). but Spain, certainly is less than sympathetic to illegal immigrants, especially in their markets. To run a stall in Spain you do have to prove you are a resident and join a waiting list. Occasionally, desperate "illegals" or as they are commonly known "lookie Lookie men" will try to lay out their wares and are chased off - if caught, they are unceremoniously sent back to their country of origin - I think the UK is the only place where there is some sympathy and courteousness - they get sent to a special camp and await deportation.

as you were lol!!!

Jo xxx


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

jojo said:


> I'll just point out, (cos as you admit, you've not been). but Spain, certainly is less than sympathetic to illegal immigrants, especially in their markets. To run a stall in Spain you do have to prove you are a resident and join a waiting list. Occasionally, desperate "illegals" or as they are commonly known "lookie Lookie men" will try to lay out their wares and are chased off - if caught, they are unceremoniously sent back to their country of origin - I think the UK is the only place where there is some sympathy and courteousness - they get sent to a special camp and await deportation.
> 
> as you were lol!!!
> 
> Jo xxx


Thanks for the correction, JoJo. I know that things have changed somewhat in the past few years, but there's still a different POV toward those from poorer countries VS more wealthy.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> Thanks for the correction, JoJo. I know that things have changed somewhat in the past few years, but there's still a different POV toward those from poorer countries VS more wealthy.


Having spent some time in Spain over the years, most recently in 2007, I don't recall that people were that fond of illegal immigrants from Africa and elsewhere selling things in street markets.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

mickisue1 said:


> Cuyler, from my understanding of other countries, it's not so much that they want to get back at NOBers, it's that they figure that first world countries can and should take care of their own, and if they are in better economic circumstances than their geographical neighbors, they need to help their people.
> 
> It's unhelpful to look at things from a "You'll get yours" POV, rather, there are actually governments that encourage the poor and needy to come to their countries. PSSST: the US used to be one, but no more. CF: the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
> 
> ...


My take on illegal Mexican or Central Americans in southern California over the more than 3 decades I have lived there is far different than what the media states. When Arizona started allowing the police to stop and ask Mexican "looking" people for documentation long before the state had a state law to do so legally the Californians were against it. The economy in California relies heavily on agriculture. Arizona doesn´t. The gardening companies in Yuma were busted for having over 1/2 of the workers working as illegal immigrants before the state law came in but it was an immigration investigation, not local police. The reaction in California was "Now if this catches on here all the businesses and homes will pay through the nose for landscaping care also, what a crock!"

Also:"If the Arizona law passes here, California´s economy will be in trouble because we depend on this system and prices are competitive in agriculture and other rural business, screw Arizon for starting this trouble for us."

BTW: Romney got 55.5% in Arizona, no surprise to me. Obama got 60% in California, also no surprise to me.


----------

