Originally posted by MitchMan
I like David K's post. It's definitive, mentioning State and Federal requirements. Based on that post versus the equivocation and conflicting other
posts causing me some confusion and ambiguity on the issue of the requirement for an FMT, I'd like weigh in on this.
If there is a conflict/difference between State rules versus Federal rules, then the most conservative (or most restrictive) rules should be followed,
not withstanding fact juristction for immigration rests with the Mexican federal government and not with Mexican state or local authorities.
David K's post states if you (non-Mexican tourist) are south of or out of the Border Zone ("BZ") you are required to have an FMT, regardless of the
duration of your stay. If you are in the BZ and if you are there for only up to 72 hours, you don't need any FMT. If you are in the BZ after 3 days
and up to 7 days you will need an FMT. If you are in the BZ for over 7 days you need an FMT.
The questions I still have are:
1)Am I correct about not needing any FMT document at all if in the BZ for a stay of only 3 days?
2)Can the FMT requirement for being South of or Outside of the BZ for up to 7 days be satisfied with the Free FMT?
3) Is the "Free FMT" tourist card the same as the Paid FMT with the exception of not being stamped Paid by a Mexican Bank (and therefore not actually
Paid for)?
4) If in the BZ, how would federal or state authorities know how long you have been there if you drove to that location (or rode in a car as a
passenger) and you didn't have your passport stamped upon entry to Mexico?
If #4 is a burden of proof issue, and Mexican law says the burden of proof is the responsibility of the tourist to prove the specific length of their
stay, then whether or not the Mexican authorities independently know how long you have been there is irrelevant, and you must have proof of your stay
since the Authorities are at liberty to presume whatever they want and hold you to it. |