Flight Training in Mexico

[pjbphd]

I am a U.S. citizen who may be spending quite a bit of time in Mexico. Does
anyone know if I can earn a pilots certificate in Mexico that will be
recognized elsewhere even though I'm not a Mexican citizen or national?

Thanks

pjb


--
Too many spams have forced me to alter my email. If you wish to email me
directly please send messages to pjbphd at cox dot net

[Robert M. Gary]

> Mexican national to get a Mexican pilot license

You can get a Mexican private ticket quite easily based on a U.S.
certificate. I believe a commercal requires a check ride. HOwever, the
poster was probably asking about a U.S. ticket. Most of the aircraft
flying in Mexico are U.S. aircraft and most of the pilots are U.S.
citizens.

-Robert

[pjbphd]

Thanks for the info.

One correction, non-Mexican citizens cannot own property within 50 km (I
think) of the ocean or border. They can however purchase a bank trust that
essentially conveys the same rights as property, e.g., they can pass it on
to their heirs, sell, act. The bank trusts are set up for 50-years, but are
renewable for 50-year increments in perpetuity.

Thanks again

Paul


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I"m not aware of any limitation that would stop you from getting a U.S.
> ticket. The hard part may be finding a U.S. examiner in Mexico but I'd
> bet there probably is one. As you probably know most pilots in Mexico
> hold U.S. tickets and most of the aircraft down there have U.S. N
> numbers.
> BTW: Even though its quite trivial to get a visitor visa in Mexico,
> getting residency is more paperwork. There are three levels of status
> you most go through. I believe the first is a 1 year residency. After
> that you can apply for 5 year, then perm. However, you can never own a
> business unless you marry a Mexican or pay a large fee. However, you
> can own all the property you like.
> I'll be down in Mexico the week after next if you need flight training.
> :) I'll be in Loreto, BCS for about 2 weeks but doing a lot of flying
> around. I'm jealous. Mexico would be a great place to live.
>
> -Robert, CFI and frequent Mexico visitor
>

[Robert M. Gary]

> non-Mexican citizens cannot own property within 50 km (I think) of the ocean or border.
That must not include the Sea of Cortez. Most of the homes along the
Sea are owned by Americans. In fact San Felipe has a large ReMax office
dedicated to selling homes to Americans on the beach.
However, in any case, they have the U.S. beat hands down. In the U.S.
Americans can't ever own property anywhere, ever.

-Robert

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> However, in any case, they have the U.S. beat hands down. In the U.S.
> Americans can't ever own property anywhere, ever.

You lost me, on that one.
--
Jim in NC

[newsgroups.comcast.net]

I'd guess, referring to the supreme court indicating that the government can
take your property, anytime they want, for any purpose they want.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>
> > However, in any case, they have the U.S. beat hands down. In the U.S.
> > Americans can't ever own property anywhere, ever.
>
> You lost me, on that one.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Rachel]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>non-Mexican citizens cannot own property within 50 km (I think) of the ocean or border.
>
> That must not include the Sea of Cortez. Most of the homes along the
> Sea are owned by Americans. In fact San Felipe has a large ReMax office
> dedicated to selling homes to Americans on the beach.
> However, in any case, they have the U.S. beat hands down. In the U.S.
> Americans can't ever own property anywhere, ever.

Huh?

[Robert M. Gary]

> Huh?

If you own something you can do the following...
1) Decide how you want to use it
2) Decide to keep it, even if someone else really wants it
3) Not have to pay something else to keep it.
4) You can stop others from using it

However,
1) You can't do what you want with your property, you must ask the
gov't for permission. You can't even add a window to your house without
permission (permits)
2) If the gov't believes another person or company would make better
community use of your property (even if its just to generate more
taxes) the gov't can take your property
3) If you don't pay your property taxes, see how long you get to keep
your property.
4) If someone builds a shack (without permits) on your property and
establishes that as their home, you can't kick them off.

So my conclusion is that, in the U.S., no one really owns property
other than the govt.


-Robert

[pjbphd]

Most Mexican towns on the Sea of Cortez now have American brokerage firms,
e.g., ReMax Coldwell Banker, selling to Americans. In fact, most of the
realtors, at least in northern Sonora, are Americans. However, again it's
as bank trusts not title to the land. That's why I may be spending a lot of
time down there, we're looking at purchasing on the Sonoran coast.

pjb


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> non-Mexican citizens cannot own property within 50 km (I think) of the
>> ocean or border.
> That must not include the Sea of Cortez. Most of the homes along the
> Sea are owned by Americans. In fact San Felipe has a large ReMax office
> dedicated to selling homes to Americans on the beach.
> However, in any case, they have the U.S. beat hands down. In the U.S.
> Americans can't ever own property anywhere, ever.
>
> -Robert
>

[Jose]

> So my conclusion is that, in the U.S., no one really owns property
> other than the govt.

Well, look at the other side. When you "own" real estate, you also
"own" the character of that real estate - the character of the area in
which you purchased it. You own it in common with other real estate
holders in the area, but it is an important part of real estate. It is
what =makes= location important.

The restrictions on other people's ability to screw up your real estate
values by doing "inappropriate" things on their land (like put in an oil
well or a chemical plant) protects =your= real estate investment. In
return, you agree to similar restrictions.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

Communities can get together and agree to certain things as a group
and add those restrictions to future purchases (with the appropriate
market price adjustment for that lose of use) but that is very
different from the gov't putting limits on land without the owner's
approval.

-Robert

> Well, look at the other side. When you "own" real estate, you also
> "own" the character of that real estate - the character of the area in
> which you purchased it. You own it in common with other real estate
> holders in the area, but it is an important part of real estate. It is
> what =makes= location important.

[Jose]

> Communities can get together and agree to certain things as a group
> and add those restrictions to future purchases (with the appropriate
> market price adjustment for that lose of use) but that is very
> different from the gov't putting limits on land without the owner's
> approval.

The government =is= the community, albeit in a larger sense. And when
the local community puts limits on your use of your property, it doesn't
have your approval either - it is done through represenatation or
majority voting. If you are not in the majority, you still don't get to
opt out.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

> The government =is= the community, albeit in a larger sense. And when
> the local community puts limits on your use of your property, it doesn't
> have your approval either - it is done through represenatation or
> majority voting. If you are not in the majority, you still don't get to
> opt out.

You are describing something MUCH different than I am. When groups of
land owners get together and sign an agreement to place easements on
their property either for common good or for a price that is
consensual. When gov't (local of fed) come in and tell you that you
cannot do something on your property because someone else had decided
you can't do it, that is stealing. If groups want to prevent you from
using your property for certain purposes than they need to put up the
money to purchase that easement. If someone wants to stop you from
building a barn because a certain type of bird lives on your property
they should come, cash in hand, to purchase that easement, not use the
gov't to steal that easement.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Its funny that it used to be a very anti-social thing to move to
Mexico. Today you can get the same Sat TV stations you get in the U.S..
You can even keep your U.S. phone number in most cases and you don't
pay any long distance with IP phones. Its almost like you never left
the states. However, if you do buy a house check to see what your power
allocation is. Homes built in Mexico purchase a certain power capacity,
sometimes its not enough. If you use more electricity than allocated
you may end up running out of power or having to purchase a larger
allocation. If the house is still under construction, there is no
guarantee that power, sewage or water has been allocated for the house.
Many Americans choose to buy existing homes to avoid this problem.
However, with U.S. real estate agents down there looking to build good
reputations problems are probably becoming a thing of the past.

-Robert

[Jose]

> When groups of
> land owners get together and sign an agreement to place easements on
> their property

Suppose the group of land owners is the "Antelope Lake District", made
up of the thirty eight homeowners surrounding Antelope Lake. Twenty of
them get together, and by vote of fifteen to five, decide to place
limits on how high a building can be in that district.

You are one of the homeowners surrounding Antelope Lake but were not at
the meeting. You also oppose the new rule, as you want to add two
stories to your home and rent them out. They have just bitten into your
income.

Why is this not the same thing?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Its not the same thing in that they should not have the authority to
> impose their new "rule" on the owner who didn't approve it. The rule
> should only be binding on those who voted in favor of it.

But the community got together six years ago and created this
organization for the purpose of protecting each other's interest in
their property by prevnting abuse by others - for example, putting a six
story factory building in the middle of what used to be a nice quiet
single-family neighborhood.

They decided that a majority vote would be all that was needed, and that
everyone would abide by the rulings of that majority.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

However, with U.S. real estate agents down there looking to build good
reputations problems are probably becoming a thing of the past.

-Robert


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Using the word "real estate agent" and "good reputation" in the same
sentence is pretty funny...... <G>

[Jose]

> "Community" is different than land owners. If a guy lives in a van down
> by the river, he gets to vote on issues that [affect] proptery holders in
> his area.

So? There's nothing special about land owners. If you buy property,
you also buy into the rules that come with that property. If those
rules include eminent domain, so be it. If those rules include the
ability of others to change those rules, so be it.

You would have the same thing in reverse. An owner of Connecticut land
who lives in Vermont would be able to build a factory in Connecticut and
destroy the environment of the other land owners in the area, without
their say-so. That's also "taxation without representation".

The use of one piece of land affects the value of an adjacent piece of
land (this includes its value as a rental home, both to the person
living there and the person who owns it).

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

> So? There's nothing special about land owners

That is the most complete statement with regard to land owner's rights
I've seen yet. So owning land does not give you any special priv. with
the land. That seems to well support my assertion that there are no
land owner's right in the U.S.

> If you buy property, you also buy into the rules that come with that property.

I have no problem with that. That's like CCNR's. You can either decide
to live with it or decide not to buy the property. However, what we are
talking about is people coming along after you bought the land and
restricting your use of the land without compensation. That is
stealing.

> An owner of Connecticut land who lives in Vermont would be able to build a factory in Connecticut and
> destroy the environment of the other land owners in the area, without their say-so.

If the necessary restriction did not exist when the land owner bought
the property, the adjacent land owners should purchase that easement
from the land owner. You can't just steal it.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> It would be VERY unfair to have voting by "property ownership".

I wasn't saying otherwise. However, our current system is unfair as
well. Your taxes can be increased or you use of land can be limited and
you have NO ability to vote on the measure.

-Robert

[Jose]

> So owning land does not give you any special priv. with
> the land.

No, owning land does not (or should not) give you any special priviges.
Period. Owning anything gives you some privilages (but not complete
privilages) over the item in question. Nothing special about land IMHO.

> However, what we are
> talking about is people coming along after you bought the land

That's part of the rules you agreed to when you bought the land. "We
can change these rules without giving you notice" is a common clause in
financial contracts; do you think that you have no financial rights at
all? Is that stealing?

> If the necessary restriction did not exist...

What did exist was a body of law, which is relied upon by other
landowners, that protects their rights.

Not everything can be reduced to money. That is the classic fallacy of
libertarians (who have a point, but do not have the answer)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug]

Well, I suppose it is unfair to own property and not get to vote on how
the property taxes are spent. But that is the price of democarcy, one
man, one vote concept. I guess the idea is that it is better than any
other system around, even though it is not perfect.

[Robert M. Gary]

> Well, I suppose it is unfair to own property and not get to vote on how
> the property taxes are spent. But that is the price of democarcy, one
> man, one vote concept. I guess the idea is that it is better than any
> other system around, even though it is not perfect.

I don't think that is a quality of democarcy, its just our current
implementation. Originally, only property owners were allowed to vote
in the U.S. The reasoning was those where the guys paying the taxes.
I'm not saying that is how we should do it but it certainly seems
unfair when property owners cannot vote.

-Robert