How is that to be construed as animosity?
The USA has laws restricting private ownership of property also. Is that animosity?
BTw before you call someone ignorant perhaps you should more accurately articulate what you are saying. Restricting investment is not animosity. English is my second language but I know the two words are not synonymous.
Three years ago I also happened to have assisted two American couples set up a corporation and purchase commercial property within the restricted zone.
They are the sole owners. No Mexicans are found on the corporation papers. The only thing required for them to do business here was to incorporate under Mexican law.
Try again. Your first response was lacking.
Yes. All true. That’s why “I can’t think of a single country up to the task.”
But it remains a task Mexico needs done.
The US laws are nowhere near that restrictive and encompassing.
Animosity is a perfect word to use. There is hostility among many in Mexico when the subject of foreign investment comes up. When Fox began discussing allowing outside investment in PemEx, it triggered heated and ugly discussions in Mexico, in the papers and in the halls of government. Before you tell me that my statement is: “This is another comment made without basis and absolutely untrue” perhaps you should look up the words “truth” and “basis,” while you are also reviewing how an investor might see being forbidden from doing something as a reflection of animosity.
Now here is a positive trend for Mexico - the time needed to go through the bureacracy to start a company has been declining significantly since I last tried to do some business there:
Mexico
2005: 58
2006: 27
2007: 27
2008: 28
2009: 13
Still twice as long as the US (only 6 days), but a great improvement from 2005.
Another metric is the corruption index from Transparency International. The scale runs from 1 - 10, with a 10 being the best score to get.
US: 7.1
Mexico: 3.1
Our friends to the North have an even better score of 8.9!
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
Such hypocrisy. Your country restricts land ownership and foreign ownership in TV and radio.
If there exists such animosity here try explaining why so many foreign companies do business here. And I suppose you have never heard of NAFTA either.
I also suggest you look up the word animosity. It means nothing like restrictive. Unless you are also the arbiter of defintions of the words in the English language.
Oh the animosity!!! Whoops. That means foreigners face the same red tape as Mexican citizens. Such discrimination. What hostility.
What bullshit.
People do business in Mexico because it is a very large marketplace, and it also has some cheap labor.
While NAFTA does require that foreign investment be substantially treated the same, this is still being worked out in the courts in Mexico.
Finally, It is easier for you as a Mexican citizen to buy land on beach in California that for me as US citizen to buy land on the beach in Baja California.
I notice that you are long on hyperbole, yet your arguements rarely (if ever) provide any actual facts, links, citable examples, data points, etc. Your hyperbole would be slightly more palatable if you were actually dispelling ignorance as well. I look forward to your cites.
Where did I call this an example of animosity? Oh, that is right, I did not. I showed this data (data is another word you should look up in your English to Spanish translation guide) to show two things:
How dishonest can you get¿
You started attacking México as being antagonistic to foreign investment. Now you are backpedaling. You have failed to show one example of animosity towards foreign investment.
I pointed out that your country also restricts foreign ownership of certain industries but you lamely claim that it isn’t As restrictive. How fucking lame can you get? All countries place restrictions on foreign participation within their borders. Reminds me of a favorite song by Eric Clapton…Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
All beaches are federal property here. I can’t own them either. If you are talking about the restricted zone and you know so much about the law you know that foreigners can hold property there through a bank trust. There are parts of the USA where I am absolutely forbidden to own property.
I can hear Eric singing.
As far as beaches are concerned
And tell me how many restrictions your country has placed on Mexican truckers in direct violation of NAFTA.
Can foreign ships move passengers or cargo between to Amrican ports?
Meh. I’m not seeing any important difference between the VDare article and the one you linked to. They agree on the basic facts, the only difference is a matter of emphasis. The main difference is that Carrigan focuses more on the aftermath and the consequences for Mexicans.
Yes, the Texas Rangers and others overreacted badly, but the fact is that they were severely provoked, and being not far removed from the old frontier days they were perfectly willing to spill blood and take the law into their own hands. You, however, are ignoring the critical role that a cynical Mexican politician played in the affair and the fact that his appeals to anti-white hatred resonated with many Mexicans. As usual, you try to frame the debate so as to justify your hated of people with my skin color and culture.
Still waiting for your comments on Mexico’s brutal mistreatment of illegal aliens from other countries trying to reach the United States. I guess humane treatment for illegal aliens only applies when they’re Mexican, right?
Not in the least ( and what would racialism have to do with ignorance ? Many racialists, such as Revilo Oliver, appear to have had very high IQs — as did many marxists who subscribed to oppressive thinking which worked for them ). Apart from religious refugees, such as the puritans, earnestly searching for a place of their own where they could oppress others ( and who founded universities, showing their devotion to learning ), generally in the modern age immigration was driven by the losers in their own society: this applies to previous American immigration as Hunter S. Thompson pointed out. Those who are successful at home and getting good incomes were not the people to chuck it all for a new life abroad. Obviously the poor and unsuccessful were/are more willing to face the hardships in a new land. Especially if it’s better than staying at home.
If one claimed that jews were more intelligent than blacks, that would be racist, and fully condemned and refuted by jewish people as such. If one claimed that one sector of jews was more intelligent than another sector of the same group ( as say Hassidics over secular, or vice versa ) that may be very untrue, but not racist. I made no assumptions about Mexican intelligence: just that those millions entering now are not all capable of being, nor seeking to become, rocket scientists, as evidenced by the menial positions they take which is all, unfortunately, they can be offered. They are not worse human beings if they are less intelligent. Intelligence is as intelligence does.
I have no hesitation in deciding some random groups of people, or individuals, are more intelligent than some others since my own IQ is not very high at all to my sorrow ( though I’m kinda suspicious of people on the internet claiming 157 IQs… ). Also, as a non-American, I should point out that for most of the last century it has been noticed that ‘loser’ is a pejorative only in America. The rest of us just accept that some people win and some people lose without it being in any way always to the discredit of the latter.
Not one instance of backpedal. I am capable of talking about more than one thing at a time. Animosity towards foreign investment is different from corruption and is different from overall bureacratic limitations on the creation of business. 3 different subjects there, all related to ways that Mexico has problems.
I agreed that the US has a few limitations on ownership, but nothing close to what Mexico has. I actually linked to summaries of the Mexican law regarding ownership restrictions. I even went so far as to mention when the laws were changed.
You? You did nothing. However, if you wish to show the specific differences between foreign investment regulations in the US vs. foreign investment regulations in Mexico - please do so. I would welcome the information.
That link I gave to the wiki — GDP — is based on Purchasing Power Parity: full title, List of countries by GDP (PPP)
Yeah, but whatta-ya-gonna-do ? shrugs shoulders
I think that would require an essay, but not being catholic nor christian I shouldn’t feel comfortable blaming that church too much; although I have had catholic friends who definitely thought the RC church is in it for the money. But it has been noted that countries with large catholic populations appear to be composed of lots of poor people with rich elites. Siphoning off spare change from large masses of the faithful in exchange for guaranteeing their entry into Heaven may well be profitable to any organisation, but it leads both to fatalism and acceptance amongst the poor and leaves them with less spare change.
The Church does do enormous good in combatting world poverty — although that is not, and nor should it be, it’s primary function — but even it’s spiritual messages signal the embrace of poverty as a virtue and the offering of suffering to God. One doesn’t have to be a materialist to consider these both odd and self-serving.
I started reading a book the other day called Amexica by Ed Vulliamy, I haven’t read enough of it yet to outright recommend but it seems it would be of use to anyone who wants to find out “what the fuck is wrong with Mexico”. It has a decent set of reviews too.
Send some of those illegal immigrants our way (to Canada)…Latina women are the HOTTEST 
Actually you claimed that México showed animosity towards outside investors. And to support that claim you posted some restrictions on foreign investment here.
For one thing there is no animosity toward foreign investment. NAFTA for one is a prime example of that. There are restrictions but no animosity. Every country in the world regulates foreign investment within its borders. This doesn’t mean there exists animosity.
Your country restricts foreign investment and ownership in a number of things including agriculture, transportation and communications. Can a foreign ship carry passengers or cargo between 2 American ports? Can foreign airlines carry passengers between 2 destinations? Can foreigners own a television station? Or a radio station?
From here: http://www.iie.com/research/topics/hottopic.cfm?HotTopicID=10
“the Exon-Florio Amendment, which gave the president broad powers to block a foreign acquisition of a US company if that transaction threatened to impair US national security.”
The law concerning the restricted areas in our country stems directly from national security issues. Tell me why you construe this as animosity when your country holds similar powers? Don’t try to say there was no outright hostility towards the Dubai port holdins or the Chinese aqcuisition of one of your oil companies.
You also attempted to use Pemex as an example, which shows what little you really know about my country. The public is decidedly against privatization period. Whether that means domestic or foreign ownership.
What, like from Honolulu to LA? Probably.