American company outraged after Mexican military, police seized Caribbean facility: 'This is...

While I appreciate your argument, I disagree with it. I believe you may be confusing your apparent dislike of business with laws and rights. First let me say let me say that I personally don't believe any foreigners should have any property rights in our Country, or in any other country for that matter, but that if those rights are granted in law, they must be enforced... even if I don’t personally agree with them.

From what I see in this case apparently there is basically no difference between Mexico taking over an embassy or the private property rights of a US person or company. OK maybe I stretched the law a bit because an embassy is recognized as foreign soil, but you get what I am trying to say. It is one of the main functions of government to protect our interests and personal rights in foreign lands. It’s that simple. If you don’t believe that: than the next time a famous basketball player is lawfully detained for transporting drugs, then our government shouldn’t do anything.

I agree in theory, but our government (regardless of administration) has a long history of "putting it's nose into private affairs of our companies and citizens in other countries".

Mexico taking over control of the quarry and port facility is the textbook actions of nationalization while not technically being so. If true for this instance, then how much of a stretch is it to see them starting to nationalize sectors of their economy and/or repeat the actions again when a Mexican company is affected in a contract dispute?

Numerous times a year we get involved when US citizens and corporations run afoul of other countries. Some make big splashes on the news and some don't.

We just did it for a NBA star that was prosecuted under laws of another country - was it overly harsh by our standards? Yes. Was it proper under the laws of the country? Yes. Was it political? Absolutely.

Looking back to 2007 and later, we got involved when Chavez nationalized many of US corporation owned assets in Venezuela. Did we do anything more than try to apply influence to protect the US Corporations down there? No (no strike teams being deployed .. etc), however we assisted in every other legal way including having people from the US Government try to intercede on the corporation's behalf.

However, our intervention should be limited to applying influence. Should the President or Ambassador get involved? Probably not. Is this something a State department envoy should discuss with lower level counterparts? Probably. Is this something the US Trade and Development Agency should get involved with? Absolutely.

This is really going to come down to one thing regarding intervention. What is the interest of the US Government in this? The larger companies can apply influence against politicians to get them to help apply influence against the foreign government. Should that be the measure of when pressure is applied (who the bigger donor is) on a US corporation's behalf?

Should it be a consideration and/or affect our dealings with the country going forward? Absolutely. Personally, I think this is a clear case of Mexico "cutting off it's nose to spite it's face". Mexico is our second largest trading partner behind China (yes, our #1 political enemy .. or #2 .. changes week by week it seems) and actions like this can jeopardize the $725B in trade.

There are A LOT of US companies that operate facilities out of Mexico, and every one of them should be thinking, "What's my situation that prevents me from being next? Do I have any commercial disputes with Mexican companies that their government is going to try and strong-arm me in favor of them? Maybe having this plant here for the cheap wages isn't as good an idea as I thought..."

COL Randall C. - Good points sir. Successful Diplomacy is usually speaking with other countries about the specific laws and how they are applied with possibly the threat of the use of force, economical or physical depending on what the case may be.

It appears our Progressive Democrats can't see past their I view everything through what I want politically nose.