Letters to the Editor 

Editor,

I am writing as a member of the foreign community who has lived in Mexico for 44 years. Let us put to bed the issue of what foreigners can and cannot do and dispose of all those “unqualified opinions” that are bandied about by many that infest this community—especially those that reinvent themselves as experts. Realtor Lane Simmons said it best: “San Miguel is where the dead sergeant’s wife became the admiral’s widow.”

Mexican Constitution, 1917, Chapter III, Article 33 with no revisions or amendments through December 2006: “Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country.” The meaning becomes even clearer if you substitute the word “country” for “municipality.” The issue of building permits and who did what, etc., etc. is a political issue. With the municipality officials’ backs-to-the-wall atmosphere, when this is all over we will see the “blame game” carried out. Guess what? It has already started.

Also part of Article 33: “The executive of the union has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it considers inconvenient.”

This was applied to none other than Stirling Dickinson over Siqueiros’s unfinished mural in Bellas Artes. He was later allowed back in. Why not? This man did an awful lot of good in this town. People will say that was a long time ago, but remember, history has a funny way of repeating itself. More recently, foreigners were expelled from Chiapas and Oaxaca; the government deemed they were sticking their noses in where they shouldn’t have.

For those of us who are registered with the US Embassy and read the bulletins they send out, here’s one that continuously shows up: “Do not draw attention to yourself, especially in public places.”

A lot of foreigners in this community seem to know better.

Beldon Butterfield



Editor, 

Recently, a member of my household, a master albañil, asked to leave his job for nine days to participate in the pilgrimage to San Juan de Los Lagos. His North American employers told him and another member of the crew that if they did, they would be replaced and could not return to this job.

The employers are angry, claiming the men want a “leave of absence,” so to speak. They apparently feel that the men are going on a recreational vacation. What these men are asking for is leave to go on an important personal pilgrimage to honor La Virgen de San Juan, whom they venerate and have asked for help to get them through difficulties.

By struggling through the nine long hot or cold, rainy days of slogging and walking, they express their gratitude and fulfill their heartfelt obligation to La Virgen who has answered their prayers. Perhaps they go on the pilgrimage to ask La Virgen to help them through a current crisis. Expressing the gratitude is an obligation not to be ignored, and asking for her help is their best way of expressing of hope.

This is not like a trek around Anapurna or a frivolous leave from work. Many individuals cannot make the pilgrimage because their economic situation is such that they cannot be without income for these nine days or cannot risk loss of steady employment. They wait until circumstances permit them time.

We who have moved here to take advantage of the local economy—to stretch our income and perhaps build the dream home we couldn’t afford in the US or Canada—should honor the deeply rooted beliefs of our Mexican hosts, who have so generously accepted our presence. It costs us very little. 

North American employers must not become Mexico’s new Cortez, cavalierly crushing the rich culture of this country. Pilgrimages are an important part of the Mexican way of life. If local people are not free to honor their religious beliefs, the Mexican government and the church should reconsider the value of North Americans residing in Mexico. At the very least, the government should reassess whether the taxes they pay adequately compensate Mexicans for the cultural damage caused by these expatriates.

Dolores Lara Goodman



Editor,

I was disappointed at the discussion of municipal development on January 16 at the Biblioteca when the answer to the question about increasing traffic in SMA was given: The plan is to construct new streets and roads. This seems counterproductive, since new streets and roads may invite more traffic, and more traffic means more pollution.

I thought I was going to hear a different answer, one that I have heard many people in the city discuss—the building of effective and low-cost parking outside the perimeter of the city. Residents of Centro should be able to register their vehicles and park in Centro. But visitors to Centro should be required to park in lots outside Centro for a minimum fee and then be provided with city vans, perhaps the new minibuses mentioned at the meeting, so that they can travel to Centro from the parking lots. The new parking lot near St. Paul’s has been criticized for being too expensive. Of course, buses and taxis should be permitted to enter the historic center.

Sharon Leder