Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Must have pension income or wait 4 years to go from temporal to permanente


Kevin K

Recommended Posts

This is yet another new twist in INM rules that I learned about from a friend in San Miguel de Allende and verified with Spencer. It probably won't apply to very many here but it's yet another unnecessary hurdle that will certainly not encourage younger folks to apply for long-term visas.

Up until now one could get one's residente temporal visa and then apply at any time for permanente status on the basis of financial assets. The new rule as supplied by a long-time facilitator in San Miguel is:

When applying for a PR visa based on 4 years, no financials required.

If applying to go from a Temporary Resident to Permanent resident in less than 4 years you must prove pension sourced income of approximately $2500 per month. Only pension sourced income is acceptable from within Mexico. Investments and home ownership will not be counted.
So if you don't have a pension but have million dollars in the bank (NOT my situation, unfortunately!) you have to go through the 4 years as a temporal, during which time, of course, regulations are sure to change again.
It all seems to be part of a grand plan by INM to boost retirement to Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, etc. Either that or they wish to provide incentive to just come in on six month tourist visas and avoid dealing with them entirely.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

They recently started requiring people to show a pension, even if only $1 and then qualifying with either 2,600 a month income or 130,000 in the bank, previously young people with large bank balances could qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see waiting four years to go to Permanente as a hardship. What's the problem?

There are at least two problems. One is purely financial: 6154 pesos (plus facilitator fees) for 3 year's temporal renewl PLUS 4989 pesos plus facilitator's fee for permanente vs. just the latter amount = $600 plus wasted for no reason.

The second problem is that by going direct to permanente one is at least in theory protected from further rule changes, has no problems with buying or selling property, etc. plus has the nearly priceless advantage of not having to deal with INM except for address changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, "hardship" is a much more serious matter, like losing your job in a recession or getting a serious disease. Anyone contemplating a move to a foreign country should be ready for something other than just a big welcome.

Maybe "inconvenience" fits, but as far as the money involved is concerned, it wouldn't even amount to enough to have a decent vacation. Much ado about nada.

Re the pension money Spencer mentioned, maybe they think about it this way: You can blow $130,000 at the casino in no time, but pension money is under someone else's control and dribbles in monthly to both the sensible souls and the fools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least two problems. One is purely financial: 6154 pesos (plus facilitator fees) for 3 year's temporal renewl PLUS 4989 pesos plus facilitator's fee for permanente vs. just the latter amount = $600 plus wasted for no reason.

The second problem is that by going direct to permanente one is at least in theory protected from further rule changes, has no problems with buying or selling property, etc. plus has the nearly priceless advantage of not having to deal with INM except for address changes.

I agree with you Kevin, and I have given serious consideration to going directly to permanente after my initial 1-year visa expires. However, one other cost in this equation is the cost to have your financial statements translated into Spanish. Spencer told me that these statements must be translated word-for-word. For me, and probably some other people, this could be a very costly process. I don't have $130,000 sitting in a bank (unfortunately), and my Soc Sec is below the $2,600/mo threshold. So, according to Spencer, I would have to provide INM with 12 months of investment statements. Our investments are diversified among many different companies, not all sitting with just one company with a convenient single monthly statement. And my wife and I have separate accounts in most of these. So that would require us to translate somewhere around 70 different statements of about 6-8 pages each. :-/ That would not be inconsequential in cost. So I think that we will probably re-up for 3 more years as temporal, and then go permanente at the end of that without the financials. And we'll just keep our fingers crossed that INM doesn't change the rules of the game again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, "hardship" is a much more serious matter, like losing your job in a recession or getting a serious disease. Anyone contemplating a move to a foreign country should be ready for something other than just a big welcome.

Maybe "inconvenience" fits, but as far as the money involved is concerned, it wouldn't even amount to enough to have a decent vacation. Much ado about nada.

Re the pension money Spencer mentioned, maybe they think about it this way: You can blow $130,000 at the casino in no time, but pension money is under someone else's control and dribbles in monthly to both the sensible souls and the fools.

The issue isn't expecting a warm welcome; the issue is INM specifically and the Mexican government generally shooting themselves in the foot by creating a hostile environment for expat retirees with assets at the exact time that other countries are doing all they can to attract such folks.

They are simply not thinking this through. "Pensions" have been going the way of the dodo bird in the U.S. for a long time, and it wouldn't take much research for the authorities here to know this. Qualification is based on the pension for ONE person, and how many people do you know who get $2600 a month from Social Security? If you made enough money in your lifetime to generate that kind of SS payment you made enough to retire anywhere in the world and are probably too busy playing the slots in Monte Carlo to give a fig about the inane policies of a third world immigration authority.

Why on earth would pensioners of any stripe be more welcome than younger folks with a million or two in the bank who will spend lavishly during their time here, buy property, possibly start a business and employ people as opposed to looking for early bird specials, taking advantage of IMSS and other services to which they really aren't entitled and so on? Meanwhile Panama, Thailand and even good ol' Canada welcome anyone with assets with open arms for exactly this reason.

There just doesn't seem to be any clear thinking behind this policy, any more than there was to the vehicle registration debacle, raising the income requirements to absurd levels and so on. As a simple business matter these are just bad decisions, IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a horse in this race, but I'll stick my 2 cents in anyway.

'Foreigners' is not limited to citizens of the USA and Canada. Please try to remember that people from north of the Mexican border are not the only ones who apply for and receive visas, whether Temporal or Permanente. Citizens of the USA and Canada are not being discriminated against. The new rules apply to everyone. Thousands of people from countries other than the USA and Canada live in Mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not have to translate my financial statements and did not use a facilitator. Piece of cake to get my Permanente.

lumieretoo, I'm listening. ;-) How did you manage to do this? I'm not trying to be a smart ###, I seriously would like to know. You can PM me if you don't want to lay it all out here.

The potential cost of having so many statements translated is the primary block to me applying for Permanente with financials. So any path around that block would be most helpful.

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Spencer included translations of financial docs in the package his firm offers. That is why his is such a good value, assuming that you have docs that need translation. He and his wife both have the correct certification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue is INM specifically and the Mexican government generally shooting themselves in the foot by creating a hostile environment for expat retirees with assets at the exact time that other countries are doing all they can to attract such folks.

I don't think this is true. Spain for example just passed this week new, tougher guidelines for foreign immigrants. For the last couple of years, if you invested appr. $163,000 U.S. into a property (there was a glut of properties at this level) you would become a Permanent Resident and you also had access to the Spanish medical insurance system - which is supposed to be pretty good. Now you have to invest E500,000 Euros and the medical system is now more limited for immigrants.

As i mentioned elsewhere, Canada just abandoned its "$800,000 investment and $1.8 million net worth" golden ticket, and there is no word as to what will replace it.

I agree that there is a worldwide battle over wealthy immigrants, but the problem is that these countries do not want these people, they want their TAXES. The world's wealthy are very wiley to minimize taxes of all types.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More Liana is 100% correct, and what she says has been stated here before. However, no one wants to listen (or believe), not sure which. The new rules were NOT made for people from NOB, although it affects us too. They were made basically for people South of Mexico's border, and other countries that are poor. These rules were an attempt to "quiet" Human Rights organizations that were constantly on Mexico's case for violations. Mexico does NOT WANT poor people, but the rules are made so that very few from any place except NOB can come. But, they have rules, that if you qualify, you can come live in Mexico. (But not if you are poor, only if you are MUCH better off than the average Mexican). Why do you think Mexico is so "hot" in support of the US taking their poor? Wake up people.This way, Mexico does not go downhill any more by a drain from poor newcomers.Smart, I think. Mexico will not allow poor immigrants to pull it down. Lots of countries that have wealth would be wise to watch these new laws. Open arms here? Only if you have money. Take it to the bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would pensioners of any stripe be more welcome than younger folks with a million or two in the bank who will spend lavishly during their time here, buy property, possibly start a business and employ people as opposed to looking for early bird specials, taking advantage of IMSS and other services to which they really aren't entitled and so on? Meanwhile Panama, Thailand and even good ol' Canada welcome anyone with assets with open arms for exactly this reason.

Pensions are guaranteed (well, except in Detroit). INM is giving Permanentes a 'forever' visa with no further income verification so they want to ensure a life-long pension check is in effect at the time of issuing the Permanente.

The younger millionarios, well, they may decide to buy a yacht, become real estate developers, or worse yet, open a restaurant in Ajijic. Basically, pee away their millions, but (in your argument), they would still have their Permanente even after going broke. They aren't as sure a bet as the old pensioners.

This raises the question: what if these young rich Turks bought a guaranteed annuity, would that pass muster with INM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion all around.

I'm well aware of México's desire to stem the tide of immigration from Guatemala and other points south, but somehow I doubt that there are many from any of those countries with pension incomes of US$2600 per month. The points I've made still stand: SS income of $2600 a month is exceedingly rare, pensions are becoming quite uncommon, and the rules exclude many with substantial wealth. Even someone with a decent Social Security income plus regular IRA distributions is excluded under the current rules.

In reality, just like the U.S., México wants the poor when they are convenient and doesn't want them when they're not. The coffee industry in Chiapas would collapse without illegal Guatemalan pickers just like the produce business in Arizona or California would without poorly paid Mexicans.

If you take a look at the policies for pensioners in Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua you get a good sense of just how uncompetitive the current INM policies are. If you can afford Spain or Canada your can afford France or Italy as well, and that is a very different sort of retirement and retiree.

bwhite 1948 your question about annuities is an intriguing one, and one that I hope Spencer and other local facilitators will look into. One thing I'm struck by in looking at the policies of many of the competitor countries I just mentioned is how many are willing to offer long-term visas in exchange for investments of relatively small sums in local certificates of deposit or bank accounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin K - would you feel better if the income was $2,600 per couple or per family? I believe that is the "typical" case. There are no tropical areas of Europe either. There are Mediterranean climates - and there is one pocket of of Med climate in all of Mexico - do you know where it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of México's desire to stem the tide of immigration from Guatemala and other points south, but somehow I doubt that there are many from any of those countries with pension incomes of US$2600 per month.

EXACTLY ! Thus, Mexico "offers an open door"for immigrants, but there will be NO takers from those poor countries. SMART, in my opinion. The very few they will lose from NOB will certainly be worth the ones they "lose": from SOB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a look at the policies for pensioners in Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Nicaragua you get a good sense of just how uncompetitive the current INM policies are.

Kevin, you don't really believe that Mexico is concerned about being competitive with those countries, do you? This is Mexico and they know what they are doing. Besides, of all those countries, which is just a few short hours to get back "home" to family, friends, and doctors? I.E. which country borders the US? Mexico may lose you, but they are not concerned about it. Besides complaining a little here, there is absolutely Nothing that you can do about it. Look how many became RP. Look at how many Asians with MONEY are coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If applying to go from a Temporary Resident to Permanent resident in less than 4 years you must prove pension sourced income of approximately $2500 per month. Only pension sourced income is acceptable from within Mexico. Investments and home ownership will not be counted.

I'm years away from any form of guaranteed income. Based on this new info, I'm glad I got my Permanente when I did. Last year, I decided to "fast-track" my path to Permanente, even though it meant a previously legal US-plated vehicle would need to be sacrificed a few years earlier than necessary. I sensed that there was a window of opportunity that might not remain open for long, so I jumped through it. I'm glad I did. For once I guessed right!

Sorry to those who are inconvenienced by this new application of the rules, but really, to me it seems that Mexico is still pretty generous. Four years isn't very long to wait for permanent status.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lumieretoo, I'm listening. ;-) How did you manage to do this? I'm not trying to be a smart ###, I seriously would like to know. You can PM me if you don't want to lay it all out here.

The potential cost of having so many statements translated is the primary block to me applying for Permanente with financials. So any path around that block would be most helpful.

Thanks!

lumieretoo, I'm listening. ;-) How did you manage to do this? I'm not trying to be a smart ###, I seriously would like to know. You can PM me if you don't want to lay it all out here.

The potential cost of having so many statements translated is the primary block to me applying for Permanente with financials. So any path around that block would be most helpful.

Thanks!

Maybe because I did it last September? Just used my bank statements which were in English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lumieretoo: I applied in Nov 2012. I was told,early 2013, that my statements had to be all resubmitted with a translation by a certified translator. Where did you apply? I heard that if you applied from Canada or the US, translation was not necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin K - would you feel better if the income was $2,600 per couple or per family? I believe that is the "typical" case. There are no tropical areas of Europe either. There are Mediterranean climates - and there is one pocket of of Med climate in all of Mexico - do you know where it is?

The regulations are based on one person in a couple having that level of pension income. You can't combine two $1300 a month SS checks in order to qualify; if you could, you'd have a point and I'd be thrilled.

As for "Mediterranean" climates, ours actually doesn't qualify, despite the "Ribera de Chapala" hype, but if you like much warmer winters than the actual Mediterranean and less torrid summers it's pretty great. Very similar climates are found any number of places not only in the highlands of México but at similar elevations in many parts of Central America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Chillin , have you ever lived in a Mediteranean climate?? Summer are dy and hot spring and fall rainy and winters are overcast. They usually do not have hard freeze but it can happen. My ex- boyfiend told me that the coldest he had even been was back home in Tunisia. My grand-parents lived on the Mediterranean coast and I remember plenty of cold weather. It is a rotes weather in Europe because it is the best tle to do with there is in Europe but it is far from perfect and has little to do with the climate at

Lakeside where it rains in the summer.

They have similar climates to ours anywhere in the tropics at a similar altitude. IE Asia Africa .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...