Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Perfect illustration of how screwed up this INM thing is


giltner68

Recommended Posts

Yes, your thinking and logic continue to lead to incorrect assumptions. As I have suggested for months, read the law and the lineamientos, and give good advice based on them. To answer your questions, start with the Transitos. Transitos by definition describe the rules for transitions between the former law and the current law. Your answer is in there.

You did not respond to the point I raised. Point us SPECIFICALLY where INM was directed to the law to make the four year Temporal requirement RETROACTIVE.

I read the entire thing which is how I found the four year Temporal stipulation. HOWEVER, I can find no place where it stipulates that prior FM3/2 time is to be applied to that four year period. This is a major change in how the law works and well beyond mere administrative clarification.

When the law was passed a year and a half ago, it was widely discussed among expats. The belief at that time, which seemed to be correct all the way up to early this year, is that the clock would be starting new BUT you would have the option to qualify financially and go Permanente immediately.

Whether you want to admit it or not, this was a material change in the law and it came well after the law was passed, and some months after it began to be implemented. Because of this, a number of people were very unexpectedly put in the position of having to deal with the car problem literally overnight instead of have the option of remaining temporal and making the transition without major financial loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You don't have to leave the country, just let FM3 expire, pay 2500 pesos fine, pay regularization fee of 1000 pesos as well as annual fee and if you have a car you would need to make a border run to get another permit. Extension?????

Sorry, I am feeling a bit dim this morning....can you explain in more detail where the balance (8,500-3,500) of 5,000peso goes..is it for one year more on a Residente Temporal.or what..Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regularization fee, 1,000 pesos

1 year temporal fee 3,300 pesos

Fine 2,500 pesos

Total $6,800 with 1,700 left over for facilitator fees and / or translation fees to translate bank stmts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joco, Mainecoons, Ajijic,

No imagined "fake-outs", and no mumbo jumbo.

If you read the law, you will find that the appropriate and associated sections of the original law have been "Se deroga" , repealed, so that the current published law only has one current set of requirements, without the contradictions that you and others insist must exist due to your faulty logic.

If you read the law to educate yourself, before advising other people, (read the Transitorios as described above), you will find under the remaining parts, one that describes the guiding legal principle that qualifies the old FM2/Inmigrante years to count as Residente Temporal: Articulo 162, Transitorios, Sexto, V.

"V. Los extranjeros que hayan obtenido la calidad migratoria de Inmigrante, dentro las características de rentista, inversionista, profesional, cargo de confianza, científico, técnico, familiar, artista y deportista o asimilados, se equipararán al Residente temporal,"

"V. Foreigners who have obtained the migratory status of Inmigrante, within the characteristics of rentier investor, professional position of trust , scientific, technical , family , artist and athlete or similar , will be equalized to Residente temporal,"

No big deal. Simple stuff that even Google Translate handles easily. Read it for yourself.

There's no point in continuing with the quibbles, but instead focus on what works.

Current INM policy gives the INM offices and agents the discretion to use (or not) a variety of qualifying factors, including family ties, and contributions the applicant offers to Mexico, including scientific skills, technical skills, plus artists & athletes, and past years of prior FM2s and FM3s.

Let's help people use the current systems in constructive and helpful ways that work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"V. Foreigners who have obtained the migratory status of Inmigrante, within the characteristics of rentier investor, professional position of trust , scientific, technical , family , artist and athlete or similar , will be equalized to Residente temporal,"

Sorry, but that simply defines that the previous FM2 immigrante visa equates to the new Temporal visa. The equal treatment of FM2 and 3 as Temporal was one of the major changes in the new law.

FM3 was a no-immigrante visa. That designation was right on the front of the visa itself.

Therefore, it also appears that this passage was referring specifically to the FM2 visa which was the only one that was Immigrante. My wife and I each had four years of no-immigrante, this passage does not even apply to us.

You still haven't cited anything that legislated retroactivity and this passage clearly has nothing to do with that at all. Why don't you just admit the truth that INM did this on their own without legislation and did so quite unexpectedly leaving a lot of folks with a problem that appeared overnight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by an immigration lawyer and confirmed at the Nuevo Vallarta office back in March that as I had 4 years on my temporal, that I had to wait until the day after it expired to apply for permanente status. In addition to the fees for the permanente status, I was charged the $1000 fine for letting it expire, even though I was required to do so. And Aduana gets to keep all the TIPS by declaring our cars illegal. No, the individuals who are working at these offices are not making the rules, but the Mex. govt has most definitely figured out a way to extract a ton of $ from foreign residents in a very short time frame.

Just went through the process of getting the plates changed over on my newly purchased Mex.plated car. A 12 hour ordeal all in all and fraught with more absurdly inefficient and redundant steps and fees. Like the "perito" laying under my car for 20 minutes with a used-oil soaked rag, which he smears over the VIN #s and then presses a piece of scotch tape over to get as verification. He did this in 6 different places. Then he has to phone Tepic to "verify" the tenencia I spent 4 hours driving time and three hours to get and wait an hour and a half for them to phone him back. Then on top of the $4000 pesos worth of fees I had to pay, I also had to pay the 3 years of tenencia fees (another 1200 pesos) the previous owner from Chihuahua hadn't paid. You'd think with all the money they collect, they might purchase an electronic VIN reader. Unbelievable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yucalandia Steve do not include me as I am not commenting. You seem to like to single me out in emails to others and here. So take me off your bully list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuka Steve can't answer the questions. He likes to marvel us with legalese that makes no sense and isn't related to the questions. Spencer wrote some time ago that he asked a few Federal judges about the changes in INM rules and the judges thought the rules violated the intent of the law. Filing suit is a huge problem in Mexico so we have to hope that the politicians will get around to telling INM to fix the rules.

Yes, Mainecoons you are right many people are not moving here because of the rule changes. The average retiree cannot financially qualify although he would be considered rich compared to the average Mexican. The Presidente of Jocotepec told a local foreigner that at least 1500 foreigners have moved back home from this area of Mexico because of the rules.

Thank you Yuka for not sending me any PMs lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if people are moving here in fewer numbers or not, Joco. It would appear to me that the new income limits would cause people to think about retiring in other south of the border locations but there is no data to support that suspicion.

I wonder if the Mexicans are being a bit short sighted here. Perhaps they think that people who go to their beach resorts on tourist permits are what they want to focus on. Unfortunately, vacation spending is notoriously cyclical and dependent on economic conditions, whereas expats with independent incomes who live here are likely to consistently spend the same on local goods and services regardless of the short term ups and downs NOB.

I do know that some who were here already have left over the arbitrary and capricious handling of the law by INM, specifically the overnight application of retroactivity to FM2/3 holders, making them convert to Permanente or leave, and creating an immediate problem with a TIP car when one could not be anticipated from either the law or the early implementation of it, namely when INM was starting the Temporal clock over again for FM2/FM3.

How many just got fed up and left I have no idea other than personal anecdotal experience. Let's just say that I've personally seen six figures in purchasing power that used to be spend in local stores and on local gardeners and maids and other helpers, has left town for good over this. People I know have told me of similar experiences. It does add up.

New folks who meet the income requirements have a very clear view of what the rules are regarding cars. I don't view this as an obstacle, but the income requirements could be. On the other hand, if you look at the current social security payout for a couple who paid into the system for their entire working lives, it would appear to me that the income requirements are not unachievable. Perhaps someone would like to comment on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the income requirements are achievable by most people who have worked most of their lives under SS, managed to purchase a home when homes were still affordable in the U.S., paid them off before retiring, avoided the various market bubbles which lost many a shirt and didn't spend more more than they could afford on leveraged houses or status symbol automobiles. Those people could have stayed in the U.S., but would not have been able to have a lifestyle that included maids, gardeners and larger homes than they started with. Mexico is a nice alternative for them, even though NOTHING is perfect, anywhere.

Some of the people who moved here planned on staying for the long haul and moved on through the visa process so that now, they don't need to be concerned about the income requirements. To me, that indicates that the government didn't design the new laws to expel their long term expat residents, regardless of their income.

Whether the government or those enforcing the changes are right or wrong, we're stuck with rules that, as non-citizens, we have no say in changing.

Ranting about the changes is not good for your blood pressure and mental health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not totally convinced that "most" people can meet the income requirement with only SSI. I worked my whole life and through much of it made good money and while I'm above the requirement on SSI only, it's just barely and I'm not all that far from the SSI max. And I believe I read somewhere that average SSI check is $1,200 a month.

And, being based on DF wages, when they go up, the SSI isn't going to follow. The mere fact they set the level 400 times, let me repeat that again 400 TIMES tells you what they think of us - just line up and moo on the way to the milking chutes.

In the same conversation that started this whole thread, one person assured me that those levels will be adjusted - ok, whatever. But overall I think the Mexican Gov over drove their headlights on this one and the implementation is representative of something a 1st grader could, and most likely would, exceed.

I have a funny, I guess old school, habit of expecting people who work for me - and that's anyone I pay - to perform. Perfection? - of course not, but I don't care if it's my gardener or the MXN gov, and don't kid yourself, we're paying them through many channels and many orifices of our bodies, need to step up to the plate and earn their keep. I always did throughout life, my Father died when I was 14, everything from there to here I earned and I expect the same in return. And for any who don't expect the best, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You set your expectations low and you're guaranteed to get exactly that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not totally convinced that "most" people can meet the income requirement with only SSI. I worked my whole life and through much of it made good money and while I'm above the requirement on SSI only, it's just barely and I'm not all that far from the SSI max. And I believe I read somewhere that average SSI check is $1,200 a month.

And, being based on DF wages, when they go up, the SSI isn't going to follow. The mere fact they set the level 400 times, let me repeat that again 400 TIMES tells you what they think of us - just line up and moo on the way to the milking chutes.

In the same conversation that started this whole thread, one person assured me that those levels will be adjusted - ok, whatever. But overall I think the Mexican Gov over drove their headlights on this one and the implementation is representative of something a 1st grader could, and most likely would, exceed.

I have a funny, I guess old school, habit of expecting people who work for me - and that's anyone I pay - to perform. Perfection? - of course not, but I don't care if it's my gardener or the MXN gov, and don't kid yourself, we're paying them through many channels and many orifices of our bodies, need to step up to the plate and earn their keep. I always did throughout life, my Father died when I was 14, everything from there to here I earned and I expect the same in return. And for any who don't expect the best, you're part of the problem, not the solution. You set your expectations low and you're guaranteed to get exactly that.

Maybe but also,.... if you expect too much, you are much more likely to be disappointed and unhappy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the people who moved here planned on staying for the long haul and moved on through the visa process so that now, they don't need to be concerned about the income requirements. To me, that indicates that the government didn't design the new laws to expel their long term expat residents, regardless of their income.

Whether the government or those enforcing the changes are right or wrong, we're stuck with rules that, as non-citizens, we have no say in changing.

Ranting about the changes is not good for your blood pressure and mental health.

The government did not make living in Mexico more difficult, INM an agency, did. The law is very generous. INM wrote restrictive rules, rules that I think are illegal because they change the purpose of the law.

The rules cannot retroactively change the previous laws. Not expelling people who lived here before the new rules is not generous, it is the law. INM rules cannot kick people out who were legally here before the rules changed everything.

We have plenty of say in changing the rules through the Mexicans who benefit from us being here. We provide employment, pay for businesses who depend on us and contribute to the communities where we live. It isn't only foreigners affected by the rules but local Mexicans will suffer more because of them. We do not need a direct voice to have a voice.

I don't know why some people think "the government" did a lot of thinking when it decided to change the rules and there is a purpose to them that is not evident to anyone else no matter how hard we search. The new rules are ridiculously restrictive and meant to make it hard for most foreigners to move to Mexico. How can that ever benefit Mexico? Mexico suffers more with these rules than the foreigners do. The foreigners who want to leave the U.S. have a choice of many other Central and South American countries that are easier to qualify as pensioners to live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government did not make living in Mexico more difficult, INM an agency, did. The law is very generous. INM wrote restrictive rules, rules that I think are illegal because they change the purpose of the law.

The rules cannot retroactively change the previous laws. Not expelling people who lived here before the new rules is not generous, it is the law. INM rules cannot kick people out who were legally here before the rules changed everything.

We have plenty of say in changing the rules through the Mexicans who benefit from us being here. We provide employment, pay for businesses who depend on us and contribute to the communities where we live. It isn't only foreigners affected by the rules but local Mexicans will suffer more because of them. We do not need a direct voice to have a voice.

I don't know why some people think "the government" did a lot of thinking when it decided to change the rules and there is a purpose to them that is not evident to anyone else no matter how hard we search. The new rules are ridiculously restrictive and meant to make it hard for most foreigners to move to Mexico. How can that ever benefit Mexico? Mexico suffers more with these rules than the foreigners do. The foreigners who want to leave the U.S. have a choice of many other Central and South American countries that are easier to qualify as pensioners to live in.

"INM rules cannot kick people out who were legally here before the rules changed everything."

Who is being kicked out?

Around the world, foreigners desire Permanent Residency in the places they have moved to. Mexico made it easier in many ways to become a permanent resident, a reality which is the opposite to your imagined "kicking people out", What actual numbers of Americans and Canadians have been kicked out by INM?

Did some Americans and Canadians choose their foreign-plated cars over Permanent Residency?

Some did.

When someone chooses to bring in a car that cannot be imported, that is their choice and their responsibility.

Keeping a foreign-plated car was never a "right" of foreigners, it was always temporary, and always a privilege.

"The new rules are ridiculously restrictive and meant to make it hard for most foreigners to move to Mexico."

The new rules requirements are far less restrictive than US or Canadian rules for Mexicans applying for residency. Mexico allows ALL Canadians and Americans to just show up in Mexico and they are automatically given 6 month visas for very low cost ($25). The opposite it true for Mexicans who want to come into Canada or the USA.

How is that "ridiculously restrictive"?

INM set a savings requirement of just $122,000 USD - which allows over 40% of Americans to qualify for Mexican permanent residency. How Is that "ridiculously restrictive"? How does that supposedly "make it hard" for foreigners to move here?

"Hard" "high" "ridiculously restrictive" requirements would exclude some high percentage, like 90% of Canadian and US applicants, while reality says at least 40% of these retiring foreigners qualify.

INM allows Permanent Residents to come and go as much as they like, without taking away their Residency permit. Neither Canada nor the USA can make this claim. How is that "ridiculously restrictive"?

INM does not require that Americans and Canadians already living here meet the new published monthly income requirements to renew their Temporary Residency, and the rules allow INM to consider many other factors to qualify foreigners to come and stay, including property ownership, contributions to the well being of Mexico, allowing ALL family members, (including grandparents), offering us many many ways to qualify - none of which are offered by Canada or the USA.

How are these things so "ridiculously restrictive"?

Mexico's residency application requirements are far less demanding and have much lower requirements than the USA or Canada, which somehow makes them "ridiculously restrictive"?

If you really do not see these realities, and you only imagine harsh restrictions, then take a personal stand that backs up your words. If you think things are so un-fair, and so unreasonable, then why not vote with your feet ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

INM set a savings requirement of just $122,000 USD - which allows over 40% of Americans to qualify for Mexican permanent residency. How Is that "ridiculously restrictive"? How does that supposedly "make it hard" for foreigners to move here?

What makes you think that 40% of Americans have $122,000 in savings?
Link to post
Share on other sites

And frankly, what makes you even dream that 40% of Americans with that kind of savings would be even slightly interested in moving to our little hamlet? - especially with all the international "press" we get. I continue to try to explain to people why I live here, at times it's tedious at best.

But yes, the more I look at that $122K number I'd have to see some serious documentation before I accept that one with the economy etc going the way it has these past years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has INM started accepting money in the bank as financial proof instead of $2000 a month in pension income? A few months ago the consulates needed pension income only and would not accept bank statements. I think Ajijic has written that some consulates are more liberal but I haven't read that INM is accepting anything but pension income.

People who have the income and money INM wants do not need to move to Mexico. They have plenty of choices. Why move to a country that has drug cartel violence, graft every time you turn around, and the rules will be changed every few years making it harder to live here? Who wants to invest in a country if you don't have a clue what will happen to the investment in the future because you can't sell if no one is moving here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

snowyco...i didnt think property ownership was taken into consideration when applying for residency here... is this some thing new ?

as far as i was aware you need monthly income of 2100 usd or 25000 times the daily average wage in mexico city., appx 65 pesos ,in a bank account or investments for a year. no mention of home ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being curious and bored this morning I went out to our friend Google and found a couple of sites that are interesting:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/american-family-financial-statistics/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/americans-savings-500_n_2003285.html

Now, do I believe either? - with a grain of salt, but it's interesting and germane to our discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo.....there is nothing difficult about moving here and most people who have left here...have done so for health reasons or they never could understand what it took to stay here. We haven't paid a peso to get any paperwork in over 4 years.....

Fred Habacht

Do you have data to back that up? Would you qualify under the new rules, Fred?

I notice also that Snowyco avoided responding to my post where I show that he has never addressed the retroactivity imposed by INM without benefit of legislation over a year after the law was passed and with no prior warning whatsoever, since the law clearly does not have any such stipulation or requirement in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has INM started accepting money in the bank as financial proof instead of $2000 a month in pension income? A few months ago the consulates needed pension income only and would not accept bank statements. I think Ajijic has written that some consulates are more liberal but I haven't read that INM is accepting anything but pension income.

People who have the income and money INM wants do not need to move to Mexico. They have plenty of choices. Why move to a country that has drug cartel violence, graft every time you turn around, and the rules will be changed every few years making it harder to live here? Who wants to invest in a country if you don't have a clue what will happen to the investment in the future because you can't sell if no one is moving here.

"Has INM started accepting money in the bank as financial proof instead of $2000 a month in pension income?"

Yes, both INM offices and Mexican Consulates in Canada, the USA, Europe, and Asia have (at their discretion) followed the Nov. 2012 published rules. Read the Lineamientos to educate yourself, starting with Articulo 44 Requisitos:

"4. En caso de sistema de puntos, deberá presentar los documentos que acrediten los indicadores y puntaje mínimo requeridos conforme al acuerdo que al efecto se publique en el Diario Oficial de la Federación;

5. En el caso de pensionados o jubilados deberán presentar:

a) Original y copia de comprobante de inversiones o cuentas bancarias con saldo promedio mensual equivalente a veinticinco mil días de salario mínimo general vigente en el Distrito Federal durante los últimos doce meses, o

B) Original y copia de los documentos que demuestren que cuenta con ingresos o pensión mensual libre de gravámenes equivalente a quinientos días de salario mínimo general vigente en el Distrito Federal, durante los últimos seis meses, y

6. En caso de que hayan transcurrido cuatro años desde que cuenta con permiso de residente temporal, deberá indicar expresamente en su solicitud de trámite que solicita el cambio por esta vía."

http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5276967&fecha=08/11/2012

The "saldo promedio mensual equivalente a veinticinco mil días de salario mínimo general" works out to about $98,000 USD or exactly $1,295,200 MXN pesos.

"People who have the income and money INM wants do not need to move to Mexico. "

There is a hidden assumption here that Mexico should open its doors to everyone who "needs to move to Mexico".

Mexico is a sovereign nation, that has the right to choose who should be allowed to be residents,

regardless of high costs of living in the USA and Canada.

Mexico has chosen to allow almost all foreigners residing here to continue living here.

Mexico has chosen to grant residency to foreigners with $200,000 USD of property.

Mexico has chosen to grant residency to foreigners with typical US pensions and typical US savings.

(See US Census figures, and remember that "recent retirees have an average household income of $49,000.")

Mexico has chosen to grant residency to all foreigners who are family members (even by marriage) of Mexicans.

Mexico has NO obligation to open her doors to everyone who "needs to move to Mexico".

Financially "needing to move to Mexico" should play almost no role in any nation's choices of whom to allow residency.

When did it become Mexico's responsibility to take in Canada's poor and USA's poor people?

Why don't Canada and USA take care of their own people who "need it" ?

Why make such repeated theatrical, drama-laden, but non-factual claims?

"Why move to a country that has drug cartel violence, graft every time you turn around, and the rules will be changed every few years making it harder to live here?"

Completely true.

Some people will choose to live in parts of Mexico where there is no drug cartel violence.

Some people will choose to live in parts of Mexico where there is no graft every day they turn around.

Mexico is a big diverse country. Make choices that fit your needs.

Why do those who see so much ugliness and perceive so many problems, continue to live is such an awful place?

Choose a place that works for you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that 40% of Americans have $122,000 in savings?

It's really not a "what I think" issue. I simply quote US official 2010 Census Bureau figures. This 40% number was based on US citizen's assets from the very low $$ period of the 2009 economic fiscal crisis - when our retirement accounts were roughly 30% lower than now, which means even more people qualify for Mexican residency now.

Sadly, the personal finance picture of US citizens is 2 faced. 40% of Americans who are between age 55-64 have over $1 million in net household assets. The lower 40% have almost no assets and the bottom 25% actually have net debt. This means that a large percentage of Americans experience relative affluence, while an equal number struggle.

Is it Mexico's responsibility to take in America's elderly poor, because they "need to move to Mexico" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry snowyco, I'll have to call BS on that. I lived in a pretty upscale world before I moved here and I can tell you those numbers are flat out BS - and more, those people have zero interest in moving here, let me repeat ZERO interest.

Now, is it Mexico's "job" to provide a place for the rest to live? - no, obviously not, but when you open that can of worms we'll have to also discuss what "we" NOB, do for their people gratis and I don't think you want to have that conversation in public. So, ask the same question in reverse "is it the US job to care for (anywhere for 11 to 20 million Mexicans) gratis ? - obviously not, so maybe a bit of reciprocity might be in order here and please explain to me why it takes roughly 35 times as much for a gringo to live here as a worker in the DF? - that's one I'd love to hear explained in detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...