# Reasoning behind new immigration laws



## 1happykamper

Hi there, I am still in Tucson and still fact finding. The new Mexican immigration laws are ..interesting. The much higher income requirements have me a tad puzzled.

Does anyone know what the reasons are for these changes? Are new arrivals from Europe and North America not welcome anymore? By the mexican born people in general or by the government? Have those expats that have lived in Mexico for decades become a drain on the Economy in some way? Healthcare comes to mind.. But I can't for the life of me see this change having any logic behind it.

Just curious about this topic and perhaps the sentiment behind these changes 

Cheers,
John


----------



## Longford

The Moderators may wish to combine this question/comment with the already existsing and extensive discussion regarding Mexico's immigration regulation changes. That way, the conversations won't be repeated and the entirety of the opinions can be considered in similar context.


----------



## Isla Verde

1happykamper said:


> Hi there, I am still in Tucson and still fact finding. The new Mexican immigration laws are ..interesting. The much higher income requirements have me a tad puzzled.
> 
> Does anyone know what the reasons are for these changes? Are new arrivals from Europe and North America not welcome anymore? By the mexican born people in general or by the government? Have those expats that have lived in Mexico for decades become a drain on the Economy in some way? Healthcare comes to mind.. But I can't for the life of me see this change having any logic behind it.
> 
> Just curious about this topic and perhaps the sentiment behind these changes
> 
> Cheers,
> John


I think we're as still welcome by the Mexican people as we ever were (or perhaps weren't, in some cases), but it appears that the Mexican government is looking to discourage an influx of less-affluent immigrants and encourage the more-affluent, in particular, retirees, to settle here. Just my opinion, of course. Keep in mind that something that may seem logical to you may have little to do with the functioning of the minds of politicians and government bureaucrats  !


----------



## 1happykamper

Longford said:


> The Moderators may wish to combine this question/comment with the already existing and extensive discussion regarding Mexico's immigration regulation changes. That way, the conversations won't be repeated and the entirety of the opinions can be considered in similar context.


i had thought about that Longford. Although the subject matter is the same, the question is not really about the laws but the premise behind them.

So I gave it a shot and posted a new thread...


----------



## 1happykamper

Isla Verde said:


> I think we're as still welcome by the Mexican people as we ever were (or perhaps weren't, in some cases), but it appears that the Mexican government is looking to discourage an influx of less-affluent immigrants and encourage the more-affluent, in particular, retirees, to settle here. Just my opinion, of course. Keep in mind that something that may seem logical to you may have little to do with the functioning of the minds of politicians and government bureaucrats  !


When these new laws were drafted what did the Mexican newspapers report as the reasons for it?


----------



## makaloco

I can't speak for others, but I'd prefer to keep the discussion about the the new law and its implementation separate from speculation on the reasoning behind it. On other forums, discussion of the latter has tended to get political or accusatory rather than focusing on how things will work.

From what I've read, the new law wasn't written primarily for "the likes of us", but to address problems Mexico has had relating to migration and transmigration from Central America and global concerns about human rights. Since the laws apply to all non-Mexicans, the effects on people like us can be viewed as "collateral damage". Some will disagree, of course.


----------



## 1happykamper

makaloco said:


> I can't speak for others, but I'd prefer to keep the discussion about the the new law and its implementation separate from speculation on the reasoning behind it. On other forums, discussion of the latter has tended to get political or accusatory rather than focusing on how things will work.
> 
> From what I've read, the new law wasn't written primarily for "the likes of us", but to address problems Mexico has had relating to migration and transmigration from Central America and global concerns about human rights. Since the laws apply to all non-Mexicans, the effects on people like us can be viewed as "collateral damage". Some will disagree, of course.


Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> The Moderators may wish to combine this question/comment with the already existing and extensive discussion regarding Mexico's immigration regulation changes. That way, the conversations won't be repeated and the entirety of the opinions can be considered in similar context.


If this thread continues to focus on the reasoning behind the changes in immigration law, rather than the consequences of it, it seems reasonable to leave it as a separate thread.


----------



## sparks

makaloco said:


> From what I've read, the new law wasn't written primarily for "the likes of us", but to address problems Mexico has had relating to migration and transmigration from Central America and global concerns about human rights. Since the laws apply to all non-Mexicans, the effects on people like us can be viewed as "collateral damage". Some will disagree, of course.


I agree that the Ex-Pat issue was a small part of the overall. I'd be tempted to say someone wanted to make it harder ... but then they included multi-year visas and quite easy to become a permanent resident. I just hope they take it easy on some very old people that have been here a long time on limited income. Some may even be lying in a nursing home


----------



## Isla Verde

sparks said:


> I agree that the Ex-Pat issue was a small part of the overall. I'd be tempted to say someone wanted to make it harder ... but then they included multi-year visas and quite easy to become a permanent resident. I just hope they take it easy on some very old people that have been here a long time on limited income. Some may even be lying in a nursing home


The new rules seem to make it easier for those with sufficient funds to settle here legally. I doubt the drafters of the new rules were thinking about the very old people you mention, though I would hope that exceptions will be made for them.


----------



## sparks

This quote is part of a post on SMA Yahoo Group from a couple that applied at a San Jose CA consulate.



> I asked why the monthly amount had increased so much and was told that it was because there are a number of people who are in Mexico on false income documentation or are working illegally. That the new income requirement was intended to uncover those who are not abiding by the rules.


----------



## johnmex

I think the above may be true.

As I posted in the "other" thread, I got my renewal #4 three days before the change in regulations. The thing that sticks in my mind from the visit to the INM in Guadalajara was the percentage of non-snow birds in the office. Of the about 100 people I saw there only about 10 had the snow bird look. The predominant language being spoken was Spanish with a Central American accent, I would say about 60%. The other 30% were a mix of Orientals, Indians and Africans. IMHO, these are the people being targeted for exclusion, not the snow birds.


----------



## richb123

I can only guess that the motivation of the law is to better ensure that people living in Mexico are able to do so without becoming a burden on their country. As pointed out earlier, this law is in effect, not just for Gringos, but for everyone. 

In reality, the laws are not really as "harsh" for us Americans as our laws are for people wanting to enter the US.


----------



## Longford

richb123 said:


> In reality, the laws are not really as "harsh" for us Americans as our laws are for people wanting to enter the US.


I do believe that Mexican immigration (and other government) requirements and how expats are treated are oftentimes harsher in Mexico than persons in similar situations are treated under US law. Canada has had tougher regs for a long time.


----------



## joaquinx

richb123 said:


> I can only guess that the motivation of the law is to better ensure that people living in Mexico are able to do so without becoming a burden on their country.


How would we gringos become a burden on Mexico? Perhaps, if Mexico eliminated INAPAM, IMSS, and Seguro Social from ****** participation the burden would be less. But what else? They could simply deport us or refuse a renewal of our visa once we became a burden. I keep thinking about the huge impact we gringos have on the Mexican economy.We spend billions.


----------



## Longford

From what I've read in and of them thus far, the revised requirements seem fair and balanced, to me. But I say that as someone who will not struggle to meet the requirements. I doubt something was changed to target Canadian or USA expats/visitors. Even though there are probably thousands of _mojados_ from "up North" wandering about the country. As the revisions are applied and it becomes clearer as to what the 'rules of the game' are, tensions and uncertainty will subside. I don't know if a record of the demographics of the various expat groups in Mexico is maintained by the government, or available for public viewing, but I doubt there are many under-financed seniors at the outer age range.


----------



## Isla Verde

Longford said:


> From what I've read in and of them thus far, the revised requirements seem fair and balanced, to me. But I say that as someone who will not struggle to meet the requirements. I doubt something was changed to target Canadian or USA expats/visitors. Even though there are probably thousands of _mojados_ from "up North" wandering about the country. As the revisions are applied and it becomes clearer as to what the 'rules of the game' are, tensions and uncertainty will subside. I don't know if a record of the demographics of the various expat groups in Mexico is maintained by the government, or available for public viewing, but I doubt there are many under-financed seniors at the outer age range.


I find your statement that the huge increase in minimum income requirements for _rentista_ retirees is "fair and balanced" a rather uninformed and insensitive comment. Perhaps because you're not living here right now and would have no trouble meeting these requirements, you seem to have little idea of how many retiree expats will have trouble meeting them. In my case, my two pensions barely allow me to meet the old requirements of around $1200 a month, which is one reason why I opted for a _lucrativa_ visa. If I had been here on a _rentista_ visa and needed to apply for residente temporal status, I'd be out of luck and out of Mexico!


----------



## mickisue1

Of course, I have no idea how the new laws will be enforced.

But the POV of many countries, as it regards immigration, is the polar opposite of the current US one.

We have given up on the "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free," and gone to "Give us your skilled, your educated, your well off people who'll pay a lot of taxes."

Many other countries are the opposite. They make it more difficult for those from countries perceived as wealthier and with more opportunities, and less so for those from wartorn or impoverished countries.

Any country in the EU is an example of this. There are huge outdoor markets, where people from various other countries sell thises and thats, and knock offs of just about any designer jewelry or purse you can think of.

They are nearly all there illegally, and certainly do not have licenses to sell things in either the city or the country where they live. But the PTB look the other way, because they think of themselves and their countries as being kind and generous to those who have little.

It's possible that MX is going the same route. You have to establish that you can more than afford to live there, to do so legally. But illegally, who knows?

This is NOT an endorsement of moving to MX illegally. It's an observation borne of experience with cultures outside the US.


----------



## makaloco

Some blame can be attributed to the foreign press and media, I suspect. During my planning phase, I was chest-deep in books, articles, and websites inviting me to live on a shoestring or retire on Social Security or escape the rat race and live my retirement dream in Mexico. Never mind that half the information was out of date, the message was that life was cheap and glorious, and the worst problem I'd face might be locating a Taco Bell. I wonder how many people moved here, when they really couldn't afford to do so, because they were taken in by the hype?


----------



## Isla Verde

makaloco said:


> Some blame can be attributed to the foreign press and media, I suspect. During my planning phase, I was chest-deep in books, articles, and websites inviting me to live on a shoestring or retire on Social Security or escape the rat race and live my retirement dream in Mexico. Never mind that half the information was out of date, the message was that life was cheap and glorious, and the worst problem I'd face might be locating a Taco Bell. I wonder how many people moved here, when they really couldn't afford to do so, because they were taken in by the hype?


Apart from the hype, many people have moved here just barely meeting the financial requirements for obtaining a resident visa. Now they find they're out of luck because of the steep increase in the minimum income required by the new rules.


----------



## joaquinx

Isla Verde said:


> Apart from the hype, many people have moved here just barely meeting the financial requirements for obtaining a resident visa. Now they find they're out of luck because of the steep increase in the minimum income required by the new rules.


I wonder how many are like me who squeaked over the line to qualify for an FM2/Inmigrante and now qualify for a bus ticket home or Panama.


----------



## Longford

Ahhh ... blame the _media_. That's an approach often employed by people who'd kill the messenger because they don't like the messsage being delivered. We don't often see an independent, legitimate/traditional journalist pimping us with the "Move to Mexico on the Cheap" message. I believe that much of the "media" material being promoted about cheap living in Mexico is written by expats who've made the move to Mexico. Oftentimes, maybe principally, by people looking to sell us something such as real estate. A couple of the more prominent of the expat-centric Mexico web forums were/are maintained by real estate brokers. If someone was "taken in by the hype" they have only themselves to blame if things haven't worked-out as the promotional materials promised. For those folks who did investigage beyond the 'puff pieces' ... they took a risk. Remember, the only costant in life is ... change.
And we all want to be on the winning side of risks we take.


----------



## Isla Verde

joaquinx said:


> I wonder how many are like me who squeaked over the line to qualify for an FM2/Inmigrante and now qualify for a bus ticket home or Panama.


I'm very sorry to hear about the situation you find yourself in, joaquin. How much time do you have till your current visa expires? Maybe the rules will be relaxed and you will be "grandfathered" into the new _residente temporal_ status. Why Panama?


----------



## joaquinx

Isla Verde said:


> I'm very sorry to hear about the situation you find yourself in, joaquin. How much time do you have till your current visa expires? Maybe the rules will be relaxed and you will be "grandfathered" into the new _residente temporal_ status. Why Panama?


The renewal comes up at the end of April next year. I am hoping for some kind of "grandfather" exemption. Panama - Income requirement is $1000usd/month, free import of car, and sunrise on the Atlantic/ sunset on the Pacific.


----------



## Isla Verde

joaquinx said:


> The renewal comes up at the end of April next year. I am hoping for some kind of "grandfather" exemption. Panama - Income requirement is $1000usd/month, free import of car, and sunrise on the Atlantic/ sunset on the Pacific.


Mine comes up next May. I'm lucky to be here on a working visa, so I think things will work out for me. If I have problems, I will call on a couple of semi-influential Mexican friends I have here to help me out. The income requirements for Panama are reasonable as long as the cost-of-living is comparable to Mexico.


----------



## Longford

mickisue1 said:


> But the POV of many countries, as it regards immigration, is the polar opposite of the current US one.


I believe we see the differences in immigration policies when we compare "developed" nations with those not so developed. After a point in time, the developed nations don't usually need/want the excess of unskilled laborers. Educated, trained immigrants and immigrants looking to start a business are those encouraged. 

But in developing nations we see restrictive immigration policies sometimes, too. One example which comes to mind (mine) quickly: I have a friend who lives in Thailand and that nation raised it's monthly income requirement to about the Baht equivalent of US$2,200 for expat retirees.


----------



## mickisue1

Longford said:


> I believe we see the differences in immigration policies when we compare "developed" nations with those not so developed. After a point in time, the developed nations don't usually need/want the excess of unskilled laborers. Educated, trained immigrants and immigrants looking to start a business are those encouraged.
> 
> But in developing nations we see restrictive immigration policies sometimes, too. One example which comes to mind (mine) quickly: I have a friend who lives in Thailand and that nation raised it's monthly income requirement to about the Baht equivalent of US$2,200 for expat retirees.


I would hardly call the member nations of the EU "not so developed", and yet, it is their policies with which I am most familiar, and which practices I was describing.


----------



## Longford

The link below will take us to a EU report issued in 2009 detailing, discussing the immigration policies in the member states. I haven't looked it over carefully ... just briefly ... and don't comment on its contents. It may be helpful in providing a comparison between what Mexico is moving towards and what better developed nations have been doing. I believe Mexico is still classified by world economic bodies as a "developing" nation.

http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/IML_16.pdf


----------



## DNP

Were you one of those people, Macaloco, that was taken by the hype?


----------



## makaloco

DNP said:


> Were you one of those people, Macaloco, that was taken by the hype?


No. But I had already been an expat for most of my adult life.


----------



## richb123

joaquinx said:


> How would we gringos become a burden on Mexico? Perhaps, if Mexico eliminated INAPAM, IMSS, and Seguro Social from ****** participation the burden would be less. But what else? They could simply deport us or refuse a renewal of our visa once we became a burden. I keep thinking about the huge impact we gringos have on the Mexican economy.We spend billions.


Keep in mind that the law applies to everyone. We US/CA (and other first worlders) are reasonably well off comparitively. The law also applies to the migrants who come across the border from Guatemala and Nicaragua and it's those people who can become more of a burden. Just my thoughts.....obviously, I can't say for sure.


----------



## joaquinx

richb123 said:


> Keep in mind that the law applies to everyone. We US/CA (and other first worlders) are reasonably well off comparitively. The law also applies to the migrants who come across the border from Guatemala and Nicaragua and it's those people who can become more of a burden. Just my thoughts.....obviously, I can't say for sure.


Don't you believe that we, US/CA, would have a monthly income of around 1,200usd and those from Guatemala and Nicaragua would have much less since an overwhelming majority are coming north looking for work. A 1,200usd foreign income requirement should keep them out while 1,950usd would keep many US/CA out.


----------



## makaloco

joaquinx said:


> Don't you believe that we, US/CA, would have a monthly income of around 1,200usd and those from Guatemala and Nicaragua would have much less since an overwhelming majority are coming north looking for work. A 1,200usd foreign income requirement should keep them out while 1,950usd would keep many US/CA out.


Yes, but it's hard to see this as simply an issue of how much they think a person needs to live decently in Mexico without burdening the system. There seems to be something else going on, though I haven't a clue what it is.

Most of these discussions (here and elsewhere) focus on demonstrating monthly income. An alternative for some folks may be to show "investment or bank account" average balances instead. Presumably, someone with $100K in an IRA or 401k wouldn't need to show any income at all. I realize that some people won't meet either requirement, but in a way, having two options is more flexible than in the previous system that allowed only income.


----------



## joaquinx

makaloco said:


> There seems to be something else going on. . . .


I believe that the answer lies somewhere within this quote.


----------



## vantexan

joaquinx said:


> I believe that the answer lies somewhere within this quote.


May have already been mentioned, but I've seen estimates of 5 million Baby Boomer retirees moving to Mexico in the coming years. I doubt Mexico missed the consequences of a large group of relatively affluent group of foreigners moving into a country like Costa Rica. Maybe Mexico is big enough to absorb them, but already wherever there's a large group of expats in Mexico the cost of living approaches costs in the States and prices locals out. Maybe Mexico wants to put the breaks on the flow south. Wealthier expats probably won't use the low cost national health plan, preferring to pay their own way. Less strain on the system. The demographics of the Baby Boomers is putting huge strains on the much wealthier U.S., so Mexico might be trying to avoid that.


----------



## TundraGreen

vantexan said:


> May have already been mentioned, but I've seen estimates of 5 million Baby Boomer retirees moving to Mexico in the coming years. I doubt Mexico missed the consequences of a large group of relatively affluent group of foreigners moving into a country like Costa Rica. Maybe Mexico is big enough to absorb them, but already wherever there's a large group of expats in Mexico the cost of living approaches costs in the States and prices locals out. Maybe Mexico wants to put the breaks on the flow south. Wealthier expats probably won't use the low cost national health plan, preferring to pay their own way. Less strain on the system. The demographics of the Baby Boomers is putting huge strains on the much wealthier U.S., so Mexico might be trying to avoid that.


The estimate of 5 million seems wildly exaggerated. There are only about one half million US citizens living in Mexico now, and almost all of them are children. According to numbers, from the last census, there are only 15 or 20 thousand US born adults in Mexico. With all the bad press Mexico receives, that number is going to increase to 5 million? It doesn't seem very likely to me.


----------



## Longford

makaloco said:


> Yes, but it's hard to see this as simply an issue of how much they think a person needs to live decently in Mexico without burdening the system. There seems to be something else going on, though I haven't a clue what it is.
> 
> Most of these discussions (here and elsewhere) focus on demonstrating monthly income. An alternative for some folks may be to show "investment or bank account" average balances instead. Presumably, someone with $100K in an IRA or 401k wouldn't need to show any income at all. I realize that some people won't meet either requirement, but in a way, having two options is more flexible than in the previous system that allowed only income.


There's been considerable discussion of the non-income portion of the regs, throughout the forum network on the www. Maybe a little of that here, earlier. Yes, there's the approx. UD$2,000 monthly income (not shiftiing amongst accounts); the $95,000 or more in bank/investment account balances, and the US$195,000 value of a home/property. Also a provision about creating at least 5 jobs for Mexicans, in Mexico. I think those are the amounts that get people "in" if they meet other paperwork criteria.

Starting to look at what some other developing nations are doing with immigration, I have the sense that Mexico is bringing itself into line with worldwide standards. Remember, too, that there's a huge immigration, lack of control, problem on Mexico's border with Guatemala. Persons poorer than Mexico's poorest are streaming across the border ... most transiting to the USA, but a lot of them looking for and finding work in Mexico. 

Regarding someone elses comment that approx. 5 million "Americans" may be heading to Mexico to live in the near term, or few years ahead: I seriously doubt that. The only reason the current numbers of Americans in Mexico full-time/permanently has been approaching 500,000+ (including Baja, for which numbers aren't as solidly available as in other jurisdictions) is the high rate of deportations by the Obama administration which has resulted in not only the _mojados_ being returned, but their American-born wives and children. I recall seeing an estimate that the number of children born in the USA who are now living in Mexico has approached 350,000. There are certainly many financially comfortable Canadians and Americans living in Mexico ... more seasonally than permanently, IMO ... but my sense is that most of the expats from the USA who have moved to Mexico or who are thinking about it consider Mexico primarily because they fear they cannot continue to live in the USA at a level they want to. Because it's "cheap" to live in Mexico. Or, so they think.


----------



## AlanMexicali

TundraGreen said:


> The estimate of 5 million seems wildly exaggerated. There are only about one half million US citizens living in Mexico now, and almost all of them are children. According to numbers, from the last census, there are only 15 or 20 thousand US born adults in Mexico. With all the bad press Mexico receives, that number is going to increase to 5 million? It doesn't seem very likely to me.


I was talking to a man from Japan who works for various factories in the industrial zone here in SLP for many years and he said most of those from foreign places are Korean, next largest number are German, next Chinese and last American and Canadian but that these last 2 are mainly executives that usually stay only 1 or 2 years here.


----------



## vantexan

TundraGreen said:


> The estimate of 5 million seems wildly exaggerated. There are only about one half million US citizens living in Mexico now, and almost all of them are children. According to numbers, from the last census, there are only 15 or 20 thousand US born adults in Mexico. With all the bad press Mexico receives, that number is going to increase to 5 million? It doesn't seem very likely to me.


I've seen a few newspaper articles including in USAToday stating that number. There was a very good article in USAToday about a year ago or so about affordable assisted living in Mexico. Companies were building facilities much like nice assisted living retirement centers in the U.S. but were much more affordable with Mexican employees. 
I doubt with the bad press it'll take off, but Mexico may be taking preemptive steps now just in case. I do see all the time estimates of a million Americans in Mexico. And repeatedly see numbers like 30,000 Americans around Lake Chapala, 5,000 in San Miguel, and quite a few in various Pacific and Yucatan cities. And of course the new regs don't just apply to Americans.


----------



## joaquinx

Síntesis Gráfica - Instituto Nacional de Migración

The statistics for 2012 show a break down of all the foreigners in Mexico including tourists. The spreadsheet on page 11 shows over 100,000 FM3/2 types this year.


----------



## vantexan

joaquinx said:


> Síntesis Gráfica - Instituto Nacional de Migración
> 
> The statistics for 2012 show a break down of all the foreigners in Mexico including tourists. The spreadsheet on page 11 shows over 100,000 FM3/2 types this year.


Looks like the potential for those living on tourist cards could easily be 100's of thousands.


----------



## mickisue1

vantexan said:


> Looks like the potential for those living on tourist cards could easily be 100's of thousands.


Potential does not equal actual.

Think about the reactions of people YOU know when you mention the idea of moving to MX.

The retirees in the next, say, 10 years, will break down into those who would never think of becoming an expat under any condition, those who might, but can't get it together enough to actually do anything, those who want to live elsewhere, try it and go back home, and those who actually leave.

You then have to divide that group among the large number of potential destinations, of which MX is just one. It has the advantage of being closer to the US, for those who have strong ties to family and friends still here. But it has the disadvantage of terrible press, and the strong belief by many NOBers that the entire country is like the north side of Mpls on a hot summer night.


----------



## Longford

vantexan said:


> Looks like the potential for those living on tourist cards could easily be 100's of thousands.


Tourist cards are clearly intended for persons who will not be staying in Mexico for more than 180 days. I know that many people are living in Mexico illegally on tourist cards and making border-runs, etc., and that some of the INM staff have been lax on enforcement, but I believe the government intends to crack-down on those scofflaws. The numbers tossed about regarding expats living in Mexico, particularly ones from the USA, has, IMO, always been excessively exaggerated. Relatively few retirees will consider a move to Mexico, for various reasons. That's my assessment. For what it's worth.


----------



## vantexan

mickisue1 said:


> Potential does not equal actual.
> 
> Think about the reactions of people YOU know when you mention the idea of moving to MX.
> 
> The retirees in the next, say, 10 years, will break down into those who would never think of becoming an expat under any condition, those who might, but can't get it together enough to actually do anything, those who want to live elsewhere, try it and go back home, and those who actually leave.
> 
> You then have to divide that group among the large number of potential destinations, of which MX is just one. It has the advantage of being closer to the US, for those who have strong ties to family and friends still here. But it has the disadvantage of terrible press, and the strong belief by many NOBers that the entire country is like the north side of Mpls on a hot summer night.


Sure, but the numbers posted of tourists are actually people who've been to Mexico. I'm betting there's a decent % of them who are renewing tourist cards on border runs rather than deal with red tape or not meeting income requirements. May not approach 5 million any time soon, or even the million number I've seen, but certainly more than the 15,000+ mentioned earlier.


----------



## makaloco

In my state (Baja California Sur), the census figures for foreign-born residents came out lower than many people expected, probably because of the large number of snowbirds and other part-timers. The census was taken in late June/early July when most of these folks would have been gone. As for INM stats, I suspect many of them use tourist cards if they're not here for more than half the year. Two of my part-timer friends got FM3/No Inmigrante status mainly because it's needed for a driver's license and car registration, and in the past was needed to open a bank account.


----------



## TundraGreen

Longford said:


> Tourist cards are clearly intended for persons who will not be staying in Mexico for more than 180 days. I know that many people are living in Mexico illegally on tourist cards and making border-runs, etc., and that some of the INM staff have been lax on enforcement, but I believe the government intends to crack-down on those scofflaws. The numbers tossed about regarding expats living in Mexico, particularly ones from the USA, has, IMO, always been excessively exaggerated. Relatively few retirees will consider a move to Mexico, for various reasons. That's my assessment. For what it's worth.


What evidence is there to support the claim that it is illegal to be in Mexico on one tourist card after another?


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> Tourist cards are clearly intended for persons who will not be staying in Mexico for more than 180 days. I know that many people are living in Mexico illegally on tourist cards and making border-runs, etc., and that some of the INM staff have been lax on enforcement, but I believe the government intends to crack-down on those scofflaws. The numbers tossed about regarding expats living in Mexico, particularly ones from the USA, has, IMO, always been excessively exaggerated. Relatively few retirees will consider a move to Mexico, for various reasons. That's my assessment. For what it's worth.


I don't know why you consider it illegal to live in Mexico on tourist cards. If they are allowed to stay 180 days and then renew at the border then what else is it but living on tourist cards? Government officials have been asked if that will be allowed to continue under the new regs and they have said yes according to people like Rolly Brook. I've mentioned it before that the amount of economic activity generated by having to leave and return every 6 months can only benefit Mexico. So why would they stop it? And some of the staff are lax? Where are any enforcing any restrictions on renewing at the border?


----------



## Longford

vantexan said:


> There was a very good article in USAToday about a year ago or so about affordable assisted living in Mexico. Companies were building facilities much like nice assisted living retirement centers in the U.S. but were much more affordable with Mexican employees.


Many of that type of article are planted by retirement industry/real estate types. I don't think we'll see many people moving to Mexico for assisted living purposes. It doens't make sense, for but a few whose children are already living in Mexico and who want Mom or Dad to be located close-by. The level of healthcare in Mexico, overall, is woefully substandard in this category IMO and there just isn't enough trained/bilingual staff to accommodate more than a relatively few residents. I know there are a few such facilities but not enough to be encouraged by. And 'cheaper' care isn't always better care. Baja is one logical possible geographical area for this type of service and Blue Cross Blue Shield of California has been providing coverage for policyholders living in Baja, if my memory serves me correctly.



vantexan said:


> I do see all the time estimates of a million Americans in Mexico. And repeatedly see numbers like 30,000 Americans around Lake Chapala, 5,000 in San Miguel, and quite a few in various Pacific and Yucatan cities. And of course the new regs don't just apply to Americans.


Those Americans-in-Mexico claims have, almost entirely, been unproven. Mexican government statistics don't support them. The U.S. Embassy has no good number, either. The number has risen, however, as a result of the Obama administrations suprisingly assertive deportation of _mojados_ ... and the American wives and children have come back with them resulting in highr numbers ... particularly amongst the children.

Even before these new regulations, Mexico wasn't on the radar for many expat retirees. The different culture, language, healthcare concerns, safety issues, general uncertainty and unfamiliarity with Mexico ... are a turn-off. I still believe that relocation to a foreign country works for only a relatively few retirees. It takes a special breed of individual to make such a move.


----------



## Longford

TundraGreen said:


> What evidence is there to support the claim that it is illegal to be in Mexico on one tourist card after another?


I have seen the language in various forms of the regulations, but haven't looked to the revisions to see if there's been a change, so here's the restrictive language that's appeard on until this week:



> “Foreigners seeking to carry out touristic activities, transmigration or other activities that do not require a stay longer than 180 days”


There has also been language in the regs explaining the purpose of the visa categories.

Persons who "reside" in Mexico aren't tourists. They're residents. They own or rent homes/apartments or have other long-term living arrangements. And as residents they're required to seek visas in the appropriate category - other than as "tourist".

That's how I view this. I understand some people read this differently.


----------



## Longford

vantexan said:


> Government officials have been asked if that will be allowed to continue under the new regs and they have said yes ...


Okay. If you or someone else has been living, residing in Mexico on a FMM and its predecessor ... the next time you go to the border for a renewal make certain to explain to the INM agent that you're a resident, not a tourist, and that you have been living in Mexico for years, or whatever the time period is, on the tourist card and that you want another tourist card to continue living in Mexico. Then report back to us on what the response is/was. Thanks.


----------



## mickisue1

Longford, wouldn't the fact that you have come and gone every 180 days or show be evident on your passport?

I understand that using what's essentially a tourist visa to become a resident is not ideal. But it's not strictly forbidden, either. And, should the Mexican government want to ensure that it's not used for that purpose, all they need to do is instruct border crossing personnel not to re-admit people whose previous entry stamps, and 180 day visa, was less than X days previously.


----------



## Longford

mickisue1 said:


> Longford, wouldn't the fact that you have come and gone every 180 days or show be evident on your passport?


When you arrive by air, yes. By land, no. Not to the best of my knowledge. People who do 'border runs' often describe them as clandestine activities. They cross back in the USA, typically, and, again typically, stay at least overnight before crossing back ... and they don't disclose when they cross back what they're doing. There are exceptions to how people handle this, I know. But most I listen to or read about are the sneaky type of venture. People know they're not supposed to be doing this out in the open. And I do know that there are INM officers who know what someone might be doing and they look the other way. The regs are not uniformly applied/enforced. I take a conservative construction of the procedures as the descriptions of INM provide. If Mexico meant for the FMM for indefinate stays they'd say so, instead of indicating the card is intended for persons staying less than 180 days. And the government wouldn't need a residency visa, if the FMM/tourist card could be used for that purpose. Thanks.


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> Okay. If you or someone else has been living, residing in Mexico on a FMM and its predecessor ... the next time you go to the border for a renewal make certain to explain to the INM agent that you're a resident, not a tourist, and that you have been living in Mexico for years, or whatever the time period is, on the tourist card and that you want another tourist card to continue living in Mexico. Then report back to us on what the response is/was. Thanks.


And why would I do anything but just renew my card? It would seem that by your definition someone who is on a tourist card can only stay in motels or hotels, can only eat in restaurants, must move on from one tourist site to the next. Someone who wants to stay in one place, rent an economical apartment, cook at home and anything else that would stretch his funds to the full 180 days is a scofflaw. Only well heeled tourists need apply. If Mexico cared I wouldn't have to explain I'll be a resident instead of a tourist because INM agents would grill me about my intent at the border, explain to me if found "residing" on a tourist card will result in arrest, fines, deportation, and restriction from entering Mexico in the future. It isn't "Fortress Mexico" so why would they discourage benign activities that bring much needed hard currency into the country?


----------



## joaquinx

vantexan said:


> If Mexico cared I wouldn't have to explain I'll be a tourist instead of a resident because INM agents would grill me about my intent at the border, explain to me if found "residing" on a tourist card will result in arrest, fines, deportation, and restriction from entering Mexico in the future. It isn't "Fortress Mexico" so why would they discourage benign activities that bring much needed hard currency into the country?


The agent at the border is not obligated to grant you entrance. They do not have to sign off on a new Tourist Permit.


----------



## vantexan

joaquinx said:


> The agent at the border is not obligated to grant you entrance. They do not have to sign off on a new Tourist Permit.


That's not the same as interrogating or issuing dire warnings. If one comes up to the agent and acts like a jerk then I hope the agent wouldn't grant entrance.


----------



## joaquinx

vantexan said:


> That's not the same as interrogating or issuing dire warnings. If one comes up to the agent and acts like a jerk then I hope the agent wouldn't grant entrance.


Most tourists come to Mexico with luggage. Coming across the border with a small bag, the agent is going to be suspicious and will think that you are not really a tourist, but a resident who hasn't a resident visa. After _interrogation_, the agent might say that they will not give you a FMM. A few years ago, I went up to McAllen to sign up for SS where the benefit would qualify me for a FM3 type visa. The agent said that I was one of those who was getting a FMM every six months and not acquiring a FM3 type visa. I had to explain in detail, that now I was getting a pension and would qualify for a visa that the first thing I was going to do after getting home was to hustle of to IMN and get a visa. It took 15 minutes of begging to get the agent to sign the FMM.


----------



## vantexan

joaquinx said:


> Most tourists come to Mexico with luggage. Coming across the border with a small bag, the agent is going to be suspicious and will think that you are not really a tourist, but a resident who hasn't a resident visa. After _interrogation_, the agent might say that they will not give you a FMM. A few years ago, I went up to McAllen to sign up for SS where the benefit would qualify me for a FM3 type visa. The agent said that I was one of those who was getting a FMM every six months and not acquiring a FM3 type visa. I had to explain in detail, that now I was getting a pension and would qualify for a visa that the first thing I was going to do after getting home was to hustle of to IMN and get a visa. It took 15 minutes of begging to get the agent to sign the FMM.


Show me one reg that says one can't stay 180 days, then go to the border and renew for another 180. If you ran into an over zealous agent or one who was having a bad day then if it were me I'd try again in a few hours or the next day or go to the next border crossing or buy an airline ticket. I'm confident that I'll be fine and really, what choice do I have? The new income requirements have priced me out of a residency visa.


----------



## joaquinx

vantexan said:


> Show me one reg that says one can't stay 180 days, then go to the border and renew for another 180. If you ran into an over zealous agent or one who was having a bad day then if it were me I'd try again in a few hours or the next day or go to the next border crossing or buy an airline ticket. I'm confident that I'll be fine and really, what choice do I have? The new income requirements have priced me out of a residency visa.


Hey, I'm in the same boat as you. I never mentioned any reg, I was going by my own experience, albeit, one time. We know that IMN agencies follow their own rules and so do the agents at the border. My suggestion is: look like a tourist, not a resident.

Panama is looking real good now.


----------



## vantexan

joaquinx said:


> Hey, I'm in the same boat as you. I never mentioned any reg, I was going by my own experience, albeit, one time. We know that IMN agencies follow their own rules and so do the agents at the border. My suggestion is: look like a tourist, not a resident.
> 
> Panama is looking real good now.


Panama's overall cost of living is pretty high. Retirees do get great discounts, although I've read on some Panama forums that often businesses are a bit resistant to give them. And the few places where it's not hot and humid tend to be even more expensive. But that's a great tip for border crossings, carry luggage!


----------



## makaloco

Under the new system, Mexico clearly no longer wants people entering as tourists and switching to resident status. Those folks now have to leave the country and apply at a consulate. If we assume that INM also doesn't want residents living on back-to-back tourist permits, why would they make it impossible for "tourists" to switch to resident status while in the country?


----------



## vantexan

makaloco said:


> Under the new system, Mexico clearly no longer wants people entering as tourists and switching to resident status. Those folks now have to leave the country and apply at a consulate. If we assume that INM also doesn't want residents living on back-to-back tourist permits, why would they make it impossible for "tourists" to switch to resident status while in the country?


What matters is what's being enforced. People have lived in Mexico on tourist cards for decades and as quoted on another forum, a prominent INM official confirmed that people will still be allowed to do so. So if one is priced out of a resident visa then one can choose to make border runs or live in another country. I'd like to live in Mexico for a number of reasons, but if they do make it difficult I'll go elsewhere. Guatemala gives permanent residency very quickly with proof of $1200 monthly income. On the other end of the spectrum Cambodia gives a "Business Visa" to anyone who asks for very little(last I saw about $50) that allows one to come and go for something like 5-10 years, sorry been awhile since I looked at it. But very cheap with virtually no hassle, no red tape. Can think of a number of reasons to not live in Cambodia but it is very cheap and very safe. And there are plenty of places in between that range from having almost as many places that would make living as enjoyable as in Mexico, to having at least a few places that would be comfortable and enjoyable. And many of those places are overall safer than Mexico.


----------



## makaloco

vantexan said:


> What matters is what's being enforced. People have lived in Mexico on tourist cards for decades and as quoted on another forum, a prominent INM official confirmed that people will still be allowed to do so.


Are you saying that people making border runs for back-to-back tourist permits have been doing so to avoid the financial requirements for residence, even under the old system? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I can't imagine why they would go through the hassle otherwise.


----------



## Longford

makaloco said:


> Are you saying that people making border runs for back-to-back tourist permits have been doing so to avoid the financial requirements for residence, even under the old system? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I can't imagine why they would go through the hassle otherwise.


Yes. I believe that's true. That's exactly why many expats have not applied for the proper visas in Mexico and run back and forth to/from the border clandestinely for tourist cards. They cannot meet the financial requirements to be granted permission to reside in Mexico legally. Most of these people do that at land crossings instead of by flying back and forth, because, I believe, the INM processing at the border tends to be more lax than what we see at the international airports where personal data is entered into and tracked by computer.


----------



## Longford

vantexan said:


> What matters is what's being enforced. People have lived in Mexico on tourist cards for decades and as quoted on another forum, a prominent INM official confirmed that people will still be allowed to do so. So if one is priced out of a resident visa then one can choose to make border runs or live in another country. I'd like to live in Mexico for a number of reasons, but if they do make it difficult I'll go elsewhere. Guatemala gives permanent residency very quickly with proof of $1200 monthly income. On the other end of the spectrum Cambodia gives a "Business Visa" to anyone who asks for very little(last I saw about $50) that allows one to come and go for something like 5-10 years, sorry been awhile since I looked at it. But very cheap with virtually no hassle, no red tape. Can think of a number of reasons to not live in Cambodia but it is very cheap and very safe. And there are plenty of places in between that range from having almost as many places that would make living as enjoyable as in Mexico, to having at least a few places that would be comfortable and enjoyable. And many of those places are overall safer than Mexico.


All of this is getting beyond the silly stage. I'll wager that the vast majority of expats from Canada and/or the USA already living in Mexico or seriously considering moving to Mexico do not have the same general interests as those who are attracted to Cambodia and some other countries in that region ... where a principal interest seems to be older men looking for younger women, or men looking for boys. If those or other reasons make that long-distance relocation attractive ... so be it. To each his/her own preferences. But, seriously, I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, get back to firm footing and let the regulations roll-out, implement, tweak and the dust settle. Of course, those in the crowd who are on the cusp of arriving in Mexico or whose status is up for renewal in the next 30-60 days ... I sympathize with you because of the unknown, the stress, etc.


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> All of this is getting beyond the silly stage. I'll wager that the vast majority of expats from Canada and/or the USA already living in Mexico or seriously considering moving to Mexico do not have the same general interests as those who are attracted to Cambodia and some other countries in that region ... where a principal interest seems to be older men looking for younger women, or men looking for boys. If those or other reasons make that long-distance relocation attractive ... so be it. To each his/her own preferences. But, seriously, I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, get back to firm footing and let the regulations roll-out, implement, tweak and the dust settle. Of course, those in the crowd who are on the cusp of arriving in Mexico or whose status is up for renewal in the next 30-60 days ... I sympathize with you because of the unknown, the stress, etc.


No, but those who can't meet the financial requirements might explore the other options out there. And right now there are those reading this forum who don't have enough income. People like you are adamantly against them living on tourist cards, so where does that leave them? And I'm not recommending Cambodia but if one is interested in finding the easiest country to move to there it is.


----------



## vantexan

makaloco said:


> Are you saying that people making border runs for back-to-back tourist permits have been doing so to avoid the financial requirements for residence, even under the old system? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I can't imagine why they would go through the hassle otherwise.


No, I'm saying that they may not meet the financial requirements necessary to obtain residency. If you don't have it, you don't have it. But if you find you can get along just fine on a minimal Social Security check then you do what you have to. Mexico doesn't seem to mind.


----------



## vantexan

Longford said:


> Yes. I believe that's true. That's exactly why many expats have not applied for the proper visas in Mexico and run back and forth to/from the border clandestinely for tourist cards. They cannot meet the financial requirements to be granted permission to reside in Mexico legally. Most of these people do that at land crossings instead of by flying back and forth, because, I believe, the INM processing at the border tends to be more lax than what we see at the international airports where personal data is entered into and tracked by computer.


That explains all the trenchcoats and dark sunglasses the last time I crossed.


----------



## Longford

vantexan said:


> That explains all the trenchcoats and dark sunglasses the last time I crossed.


Now you've got it! 


Bienvenidos a Mexico! :welcome:


----------



## mickisue1

Longford, Cambodia is not my cup of tea, but there are many who are attracted there for other things than (ICK) easy access to sex with minors.

There are beautiful beaches, lovely people, and an incredibly inexpensive way of life.

I once stayed at a B and B in Vancouver, BC. The owner was closing up shop the following week for her annual 4 month stay at her beach home in Cambodia. As a widow, she loved the idea of inviting her kids and grandkids to a winter vacation by the sea, on the cheap.


----------



## Isla Verde

Apart from my initial panic and subsequent worrying about how these changes will affect me, something good happened! I realized that I don't want to (and really can't afford to) return to the US or move to Panama or Cambodia or the moon - Mexico is my home now, and I will everything I can to stay here, short of living in the shadows where illegal immigrants lurk.


----------



## johnmex

Has anyone considered the option of naturalization?


----------



## Isla Verde

johnmex said:


> Has anyone considered the option of naturalization?


Not yet, maybe in a few years when it will be an option for me.


----------



## makaloco

johnmex said:


> Has anyone considered the option of naturalization?


I have, and will do so more seriously if I can't go to Permanente this year, having done my fourth renewal as Inmigrante.


----------



## sparks

makaloco said:


> I have, and will do so more seriously if I can't go to Permanente this year, having done my fourth renewal as Inmigrante.


You have to be Inmigrado/Residente Permanente before you can apply for citizenship


----------



## makaloco

sparks said:


> You have to be Inmigrado/Residente Permanente before you can apply for citizenship


I looked it up on the SRE site before posting, and it says "Inmigrante or Inmigrado". You do have to show that you're at the fifth year, though.
trm-nat-Naturalizacion_Carta de naturalización por residencia


----------



## sparks

That's the 6 month+ process that you need to apply for 6 months before your visa expires. Possible I guess ... but remember that the INM changes are going to effect SRE and Aduana and neither are up to date on changes. Technically you are a Resident Temporal on your next renewal


----------



## makaloco

sparks said:


> That's the 6 month+ process that you need to apply for 6 months before your visa expires. Possible I guess ... but remember that the INM changes are going to effect SRE and Aduana and neither are up to date on changes. Technically you are a Resident Temporal on your next renewal


I've done my 4th renewal as Inmigrante and am in the 5th year, so there _is_ no "next renewal". I'd have been eligible for Inmigrado next time under the old rules. But you're right, SRE could update their requirements at any moment.


----------



## sag42

I asked the head of the immigration office here in Cordoba, Veracruz about Mexican citizenship.He told me that I could start the process, but I would have to renounce my US citizenship. I asked him again to make sure I heard him correctly. He was adamant about this and said it didn,t matter from what country I had originated the law was the same. I still am having a hard time believing this, with the thousands of Mexicans holding dual-citizenship it doesn,t make sense. Is there someone who has had experience with this who could answer this question.


----------



## Isla Verde

sag42 said:


> I asked the head of the immigration office here in Cordoba, Veracruz about Mexican citizenship.He told me that I could start the process, but I would have to renounce my US citizenship. I asked him again to make sure I heard him correctly. He was adamant about this and said it didn,t matter from what country I had originated the law was the same. I still am having a hard time believing this, with the thousands of Mexicans holding dual-citizenship it doesn,t make sense. Is there someone who has had experience with this who could answer this question.


The head of the immigration office in Córdoba doesn't know what he is talking about. And since citizenship procedures are dealt with by the SRE not INM, his opinion doesn't carry much weight anyway. 

I have not applied for Mexican citizenship, but an American friend of mine who has lived in Mexico for over 30 years did so a few years ago. Now he has dual citizenship and two passports.


----------



## mickisue1

It's the other way around: when you apply for US citizenship, you have to renounce your citizenship in any other country.

To deal with renouncing citizenship, many countries just tell their expats, or their descendants, in many cases (Ireland, the UK and Italy are three with which I am familiar) that they realize that. But that, nevertheless, because in the view of those governments, you have renounced citizenship under duress, for their purposes it doesn't count.

Because of that, I could be a citizen of the UK (Dad born there) or Ireland (Grandmother born there.) I have Dad's birth certificate, but none of her grandkids has been able to find our grandma's. Back in the 1870's it was relatively common for the Irish to burn birth and baptismal certificates, because they didn't want "those damn English" knowing how many of them there were.


----------



## joaquinx

mickisue1 said:


> It's the other way around: when you apply for US citizenship, you have to renounce your citizenship in any other country.


This used to be true, but not today. I know of at least one Mexican, who was born in Mexico, that has obtained US citizenship and has retained her Mexican citizenship.


----------



## johnmex

Both Mexico and the USA recognize dual citizenship.


----------



## 1happykamper

*..irony*



johnmex said:


> Has anyone considered the option of naturalization?


..one route that we could take is marry a Mexican citizen. Good grief how things have changes  ! I'm not being that serious when I write this...but the irony sure puts a smile on my face.


----------



## conorkilleen

Even when I marry my Mexican wife, I still will not opt for Mexican citizenship. I will wait for my US born child to turn 18 to make the decision for herself, and my 2 Mexican born children, the same. I don't feel comfortable just having the Mexican government look out for me while I am in Mexico. If you are in Mexico and need some serious help, you cannot run to the US consulate even though you are a citizen of the US. When you are in Mexico, you are Mexican, not an American. When you are in the US, you are under their laws. Who would you rather have looking out for you?


----------



## longwalker

conorkilleen said:


> If you are in Mexico and need some serious help, you cannot run to the US consulate even though you are a citizen of the US. When you are in Mexico, you are Mexican, not an American. When you are in the US, you are under their laws. Who would you rather have looking out for you?


The US is often the ONLY government which does not send disaster aid for their own citizens, who do not aid in resolving missing person cases, etc. Consular services are by appointment only, which means you must ask them to find the time in their busy schedule of socializing to open the door to talk to you- one may not simply walk in to the Consulate and ask for immediate service. 

Mexico, on the other hand, lets anyone walk in and ask for help. Especially in the USA.

Food for thought.


----------



## conorkilleen

longwalker said:


> The US is often the ONLY government which does not send disaster aid for their own citizens, who do not aid in resolving missing person cases, etc. Consular services are by appointment only, which means you must ask them to find the time in their busy schedule of socializing to open the door to talk to you- one may not simply walk in to the Consulate and ask for immediate service.
> 
> Mexico, on the other hand, lets anyone walk in and ask for help. Especially in the USA.
> 
> Food for thought.


I was/am going more extreme with my decision not to be dual. If you wind up missing in Mexico you probably have as good of a chance being found as you do in the US. Also, God forbid, if a war breaks out here and extremist Mexicans are out for American blood, then I would plan on running to the Embassy post haste. If I was Mexican/American, I could not. The US Embassy will help you in this country in the wake of a disaster or war. Thats basically the only place an American is 100% safe. 

At this point in my life, young and with a career working in Mexico, I will not consider going dual even if it makes my Visa process easier. I don't _need_ to live in Mexico, but I find myself loving it every year I am here. I do realize that some retirees move to Mexico for the inexpensive living. Thats great. The previous amount needed to get a Visa was to show $1,200 a month income. I think most Americans would find it very hard to enjoy life in the USA for 1200 a month. In Mexico you can live well with a full belly and plenty of culture scenery to keep you entertained for 1200. Now with the 1,900 needed, thats like the sweet spot for the US. I believe that a single person can live very well in the US for that amount per month. Not rich, but fed and with a decent roof over their head. $1,900 in Mexico? Holy Cow you are rich!! I think its unfair to ask for the 1,900 when most Mexicans don't make that in 2 months. The way I see it if I become dual, then at least I can get a job here legally, but no Mexican firm will pay me what I am worth and match a US salary. I plan to retire here but on a US pension and my 401K. Save now folks, its only going to get more expensive.

Do I want to live here legally? Yes. Do I want to be a citizen? No. This is all my opinion and personal take on it.


----------



## Longford

longwalker said:


> The US is often the ONLY government which does not send disaster aid for their own citizens, who do not aid in resolving missing person cases, etc. Consular services are by appointment only, which means you must ask them to find the time in their busy schedule of socializing to open the door to talk to you- one may not simply walk in to the Consulate and ask for immediate service.
> 
> Mexico, on the other hand, lets anyone walk in and ask for help. Especially in the USA.
> 
> Food for thought.


I think you're making, mostly, apples to oranges comparisons when speaking of the consular services. The demands on the Mexican Consular offices in the USA pale in comparison to the demands/reuests made upon the U.S. Consulates in Mexico. And the security provisions shouldn't need an explanation. From what I'm remembering the U.S. Consular staffs do assist with missing persons matters in Mexico and that involvement is dictated/controlled by the Mexican government agencies which have principal responsibility. I'll be interested in learning of how the Mexican government assists missing Mexican nationals in the USA.


----------



## vantexan

conorkilleen said:


> I was/am going more extreme with my decision not to be dual. If you wind up missing in Mexico you probably have as good of a chance being found as you do in the US. Also, God forbid, if a war breaks out here and extremist Mexicans are out for American blood, then I would plan on running to the Embassy post haste. If I was Mexican/American, I could not. The US Embassy will help you in this country in the wake of a disaster or war. Thats basically the only place an American is 100% safe.
> 
> At this point in my life, young and with a career working in Mexico, I will not consider going dual even if it makes my Visa process easier. I don't _need_ to live in Mexico, but I find myself loving it every year I am here. I do realize that some retirees move to Mexico for the inexpensive living. Thats great. The previous amount needed to get a Visa was to show $1,200 a month income. I think most Americans would find it very hard to enjoy life in the USA for 1200 a month. In Mexico you can live well with a full belly and plenty of culture scenery to keep you entertained for 1200. Now with the 1,900 needed, thats like the sweet spot for the US. I believe that a single person can live very well in the US for that amount per month. Not rich, but fed and with a decent roof over their head. $1,900 in Mexico? Holy Cow you are rich!! I think its unfair to ask for the 1,900 when most Mexicans don't make that in 2 months. The way I see it if I become dual, then at least I can get a job here legally, but no Mexican firm will pay me what I am worth and match a US salary. I plan to retire here but on a US pension and my 401K. Save now folks, its only going to get more expensive.
> 
> Do I want to live here legally? Yes. Do I want to be a citizen? No. This is all my opinion and personal take on it.


I'd have to disagree with you that $1900 is living well in the States. You can get by decently, not well. Rent, utilities, groceries, vehicle, gas, insurance, maintenance, credit card, phone, Internet, cable or satellite, entertainment, vacations, etc. One can argue that some of that isn't needed but then we are talking living well, not scrimping. If you live in a high cost area like the Northeast or California you could easily spend $1000+ a month just on rent. I bring home about $2300 a month and I live in one of the country's cheapest metro areas and yet the only reason I can save a little is I just sold my pickup, got rid of my satellite, paid off all outstanding bills save one that will be paid off soon. And I know most Mexicans don't have it as well as I but in the States things cost more, and many corporations continually push their employees to accept less. It seems the U.S. is developing into something akin to Mexico, with a huge underclass that exists for the benefit of others. Biggest difference is the poor in Mexico can't vote for leaders that will give them everything the safety net provides in the U.S. since the money just isn't there. A big concern for me is that our leaders in Washington are spending so much that there won't be Social Security when I turn 62 in 11 years.


----------



## conorkilleen

vantexan said:


> A big concern for me is that our leaders in Washington are spending so much that there won't be Social Security when I turn 62 in 11 years.


It all depends on your lifestyle and you made my point for me. I dont kid myself thinking that SS will be around in 30 years. A young professional now adays needs to count on other investments. If 1,900 a month wont cut it in the US then there is a valid reason why some Americans choose Mexico for retirement.

Look back through the last few years worth of posts and count the number of newcomers that post the likes of "I've never been to Mexico, please tell me what I need to live there (financially and emotionally) because I am in my late (+10 from what the OP said) and need a retirement plan! I don't have a job, but I can work if need be but I don't speak any Spanish. Oh by the way, my (significant other) is Mexican!! Yippee!! Help me find a place to live in a perfect climate that I can move my 16 children and not have any issues! Is there a Walmart or Target?" Gag me with a spoon.

This is my opinion.


----------



## vantexan

conorkilleen said:


> It all depends on your lifestyle and you made my point for me. I dont kid myself thinking that SS will be around in 30 years. A young professional now adays needs to count on other investments. If 1,900 a month wont cut it in the US then there is a valid reason why some Americans choose Mexico for retirement.
> 
> Look back through the last few years worth of posts and count the number of newcomers that post the likes of "I've never been to Mexico, please tell me what I need to live there (financially and emotionally) because I am in my late (+10 from what the OP said) and need a retirement plan! I don't have a job, but I can work if need be but I don't speak any Spanish. Oh by the way, my (significant other) is Mexican!! Yippee!! Help me find a place to live in a perfect climate that I can move my 16 children and not have any issues! Is there a Walmart or Target?" Gag me with a spoon.
> 
> This is my opinion.


I agree 100%, if people don't do their homework and plan ahead then they are likely to get hurt, possibly seriously.


----------



## longwalker

Not being in the USA, I obviously cannot comment. My posting comes from personal experience gained from civil exchanges with unfriendly US consular staff in several countries, as contrasted with helpful staff in non-US consulates.


----------



## conorkilleen

longwalker said:


> Not being in the USA, I obviously cannot comment. My posting comes from personal experience gained from civil exchanges with unfriendly US consular staff in several countries, as contrasted with helpful staff in non-US consulates.


Yeah. I hear you. After the "War on homeland security" started a few years ago I feel that the US agents have a chip on their shoulder. But if you can stand the BS by your own, you will be in good hands (In broad terms). Once you cross through the BS, you are in "The Fold", so to speak.


----------



## maesonna

conorkilleen said:


> The way I see it if I become dual, then at least I can get a job here legally…


I’m missing some of your point here by quoting you out of context, but lest anyone misunderstand, a person doesn’t have to get Mexican nationality to work here legally.

Me, for instance. I don’t have Mexican nationality, I have a visa that allows me to work, and I’m Mexican tax-registered and pay my Mexican taxes.


----------



## conorkilleen

maesonna said:


> I’m missing some of your point here by quoting you out of context, but lest anyone misunderstand, a person doesn’t have to get Mexican nationality to work here legally.
> 
> Me, for instance. I don’t have Mexican nationality, I have a visa that allows me to work, and I’m Mexican tax-registered and pay my Mexican taxes.


Same as I. I guess I should have said " To work here legally and without having to apply for a working visa since I would be legal as a Mexican with my citizenship". Technicalities.


----------



## Isla Verde

As I understand it, those on what-used-to-be-called FM2-Inmigrado visas and soon to be Residentes Permanentes can also work legally in Mexico without having to apply for permission from INM


----------



## conorkilleen

Isla Verde said:


> As I understand it, those on what-used-to-be-called FM2-Inmigrado visas and soon to be Residentes Permanentes can also work legally in Mexico without having to apply for permission from INM


Yes...not to confuse the noobs... you need a special visa to work here.. Consult the Mexican Consulate. If you are a permanent resident, then you can work, Consult the local consulate.

This message above is for the fist timers. No, there is no target or IKEA.


----------



## maesonna

Glad we got that straightened out, thanks connorkillen and Isla.


----------



## mickisue1

But thanks to bribery, there are plenty of WalMarts.


----------



## conklinwh

mickisue1 said:


> But thanks to bribery, there are plenty of WalMarts.


And Costco's, Home Depot's, Office Depot's Subways, McD's.....


----------



## conorkilleen

mickisue1 said:


> But thanks to bribery, there are plenty of WalMarts.


I wish Wendys would get out their checkbook and start "negotiating" here in Mexico City. I have not seen one since I've been here!


----------



## Isla Verde

conorkilleen said:


> I wish Wendys would get out their checkbook and start "negotiating" here in Mexico City. I have not seen one since I've been here!


There's a Wendy's on calle Génova aka Fast Food Central in the Zona Rosa.


----------



## joaquinx

Isla Verde said:


> There's a Wendy's on calle Génova aka Fast Food Central in the Zona Rosa.


And even more Wendy's


----------



## Longford

Isla Verde said:


> There's a Wendy's on calle Génova aka Fast Food Central in the Zona Rosa.


You're right. Wendy's first opened on Calle Genova in 1992 or 1993. I frequented it regularly, because of the outdoor seating area on the ground level. It was across the street from the current location, where the Tel-Cel office is - next to Interlingua. For whatever reason, the franchise owner closed that and I think the other Wendy's locations in the D.F. Now, I believe someone else has purchased the franchise rights for Mexico and the stores have been re-opening. I think that one on Genova in the Zona Rosa (in this 'new' location) is about a year old.


----------

