Is that what you call a cite? An extremely biased article from some obscure magazine? The article you cited had numerous falsehoods and the USA Today article also had a glaring error. I can cite the law but you probably don’t read Spanish so what is the point?
You said non-resident foreigners cannot own property ANYWHERE in México. That is 100% wrong. Do you still stand by your claim? Show some proof or admit you had no idea what you are talking about.
You say México discriminates against resident aliens because they have restrictions on owning land in certain areas but when I point oui that the USA also does the same you try to spin it. México does it = wrong. USA does it = so what? What kind of BS is that?
But the what the laws says and what really happens are entirely two different things. Mexico’s own constitution guarantees universal health care (law). Until Fox’s administration, there was no funding for it, and so millions went uninsured (what really happens). (Although some people still fall through the cracks today, seguro popular really, really helped.)
I agree with you that the law requires due process in Mexico. I also agree that not everyone gets the required due process, regardless of country of origin. Certainly you can find examples of due process denied in the United States as well, but it’s certainly not as everyday an occurrence as it is in Mexico. (Note: I’m not saying Mexico is bad, in fact, I love Mexico. But it’s just plain silly to think that we’re par on these issues; we’re not.)
So, you’ll pardon me and other posters when we don’t believe anything else “US Legal Answers” says about anything.
Regardless, there are palpable differences “restrictions” that deal with non-homestead sized plots of agricultural or mineral land (where a domestic corporation (which can usually be formed by anyone, regardless of citizenship or residency, as is the case in Mexico (but only for non-residential property, to boot))) and “restrictions” that Constitutionally limit you to only a beneficial interest in vast swaths of a country (i.e. the 50-mile exclusions).
Which is OK - no one is complaining about it. But conflating these kinds of restrictions renders the distinction meaningless.
As you can see there are many restrictions put on foreign ownership of real estate in many areas of your country. In México there is a mechanism, a bank trust, that allows de facto ownership in the restricted areas no matter how hard some people on this board argue differently.
Speaking of the corporation, three years ago I helped some people from Seattle purchase and develop one hectare of land right beside the beach. They formed a Mexican corporation of which they are the sole owners. What does this mean? They are non-residents and OWN the land. And this land resides in the restricted zone.
Personally, I think we’re making too big a deal out of singling out property ownership. Originally it was just one item in a list of items that I meant to highlight some of the differences between the USA on the federal level, and Mexico on the federal level. Using a bank trust or a corporation still doesn’t mean personal ownership, but I’ll concede that you can enjoy the same benefits as personal ownership, as long as a populist doesn’t win and seize all trusts and nationalize all corporations (a populist almost won last time; luckily it seems that everyone knows he’s crazy these days, even his own party). That’s not to say that there’s no risk in the USA, either. And in the USA, trusts also exist, so let’s say that everyone can effectively control land anywhere in either of the two countries (although, in Mexico the problem is the federal government, and in the USA there’s no federal prohibition).
And in the, in areas where a NON_resident alien is restricted (usually it’s a foreign corp that’s restricted) one can form a USA Corp that owns land for the non-resident. However, as Rumor_Watkins pointed out those restrcitions are few and mostly passe.
Certainly a Non-resident can set up a Trust or Corp in Mexico to own land for him. But he doesn’t own the land. I stand by this 100%.
And, I also stand by the fact that Illegal Aliens in Mexico do not get Due Process before they are kicked out. Now, before they are locked up in prison is a different kettle of fish.
A non-resident alien does not need a trust outside of the restricted zone to own property. You seem to have a problem grasping this fact. And how can you argue that a foreigner who owns a Mexican corporation is not the owner of all of its assets including real estate?
I have already stated that I am currently remodeling a condominium in a suburb of Guadalajara owned by a non-resident Canadian. This man came here on a tourist visa and left over 2 months ago. I acquired all of the proper permits which require proof of ownership which means I took copies of the property title to the local government along with a copy of his Canadian passport and a letter giving me power of attorney to apply for permits in his name.
Lake Chapala has 10’s of thousands of foreigners who own property there. They hold a title to the property just like mine.
It’s a question of semantics at this point. The corporation owns the property, and no one owns the corporation. There may be a single person who owns all of the shares in a corporation, and therefore controls the corporation’s assets. There are legal distinctions, but for practical purposes you’re correct. But like I said above, property ownership is just a small part of how foreigners can be treated in Mexico.
The country that was frequently invaded and lost a huge chunk of its territory in the early 1800’s to foreign settlers who decided to secede - makes it hard for foreigners to own territory near the border and does not allow foreigners to medle in its politics.
The country that is flooded with illegal immigrants and is now worried about security too, makes it difficult to get permits to enter; some places there want to make it more difficult to remain illegally.
France, also a frequent victim of invasions over the past 2 centuries (some self-induced) also had a requirement that a foreigner living clsoe to the border had to register with the local authorities.
Well, the Porfiriato is probably why Mexico has the problems with foreigners. It was Mexico’s period of greatest economic expansion, a period that really brought Mexico into the league of what we call today the “first world countries” (don’t be fooled: for all its problems, Mexico is not a third world country). The problem for Mexico is, Porfirio is regarded as a dictator (tbh, he kind of was), and kind of caused the Mexican revolution (fair enough), and as we all know, “to the victor go the spoils.” And so it’s indoctrinated in Mexico that foreign investment, foreign capital, and pretty much anything pre-1910 to pre-1913 is identified with that horrible regime and should be made illegal in the current constitution. That’s a result of 71 years of rule from a single, corrupt, political party that ended in 2000. Of course current problems have overwhelmed the memory of those 71 years, and much of the population forgets the positive reforms (politically and corruptive) during the last 10 years, and so things get left in the dust.
Oh please Balthisar. You haven’t been around long enough to form an informative opinion. You are just repeating what your wife’s family has been telling you.
Well, what part do you dispute? Note that I didn’t call you out on equating lobbyists with corruption, nor claim that you’re just an ignorant foreigner.
