La Jornada, December 28, 1998

On December 26th, the letters column published a letter by Mr. Luis Nava García, Delegations Coordinator of the INM [National Immigration Institute], regarding the actions taken by the immigration authority in Chenalhó during the commemoration of the Acteal massacre. The letter deserves a response.

Mr. Nava claims that on December 22nd, the immigration authority "limited itself to checking the documentation of almost 70 foreigners who crossed the immigration checkpoint that this institute had [National Immigration] installed that day in the headquarters of the municipality of Chenalhó." He informs us that of this total, nine received citations because they were either not carrying their immigration documentation, [they were carrying it but] it was out of date, or they were [already] due to make an appearance before the immigration authority. Mr. Nava also says that all the foreigners were allowed to [exercize their right to] free transit once they had been checked, and that the institute sticks to the regulations laid down in article 151 of the General Population Law.

Three clarifications must be made regarding these declarations. I make them as a litigating lawyer and based on the experience that I have gained in various expulsion and harassment cases by the INM against foreigners who collaborate with the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas and the NGOs that work in the area.

First clarification: regarding the nine citations that Mr. Nava says were given out on December 22nd, in at least one case about which I have professional knowledge, there were no irregularities whatsoever in the immigration document of the foreigner. The citation was given out despite the fact that they showed their documentation to be in order. In fact, the citation was made after consulting a list that the officials had in their possession, thus putting into question the apparent good faith with which the other 69 verifications were carried out.

Second clarification: although Mr. Nava alleges that the checkpoint installed in the headquarters of Chenalhó is legal, this is very questionable. The checkpoint is not a permanent immigration checking post. Neither is it on the coast, border or international airport, places that according to article 20 of the Law would give the INM the authority to establish temporary posts. The immigration officials have never shown the official order that authorizes them to carry out checks there, neither do they show their credentials, despite the fact that both of these are requirements of article 141 of the regulations of the General Population Law. Officials carry out double or triple immigration checks on foreigners that pass through the place two or three times a week, backed up by a list the purpose of which is never explained to the foreigners in question. Finally, none of the citations explain under what accusations or suspicions they have been authorized, despite the fact that article 154, fraction 1 orders that "the facts that impute" the foreigner should always be included. This shows that the objective is not to verify the immigration documents, which would be the only legal and legitimate reason for an inspection. All they do is make it difficult for them to exercise their freedom of movement and harass the foreigners that visit Chenalhó.

Third clarification: Mr. Nava omits to tell us that the checkpoint in Chenalhó has been installed for almost a year and that the immigration officials in it control and manage a register of foreigners that visit Acteal and other parts of Chenalhó on a daily basis. Sometimes we miss the most obvious details. Why is it relevant for the immigration authority to be in Acteal whether it be on the day of the anniversary [of the massacre] or during the rest of the year? There are no legal reasons. Attorney General Madrazo has just declared to the press that Acteal is not a political issue. There is therefore no reason to keep an eye on foreigners that visit the place. Of course, the INM has contradicted the Attorney General on more than one occasion. Father Chanteau, the parish priest for Chenalhó, was expelled from Mexico for talking about Acteal to TV Azteca, even though it is not a political issue according to the Attorney General's Office. I think that Mr. Nava and the INM should explain to Mexican society why the place where 45 indigenous citizens were sacrificed is so important to them. Is it that visiting somewhere that is considered by many to be a place of martyrs is a "political" issue forbidden to foreigners? Just how far will the obtuse arbitrariness of the immigration authority go?

The actions of the INM are being, and should continue to be, called into question before the federal justiciary. Let's hope that there are more and more injunction requests [against deportation] and judgements in favor of foreigners that are unconstitutionally harrassed by the immigration authorities.

Federico Anaya Gallardo, lawyer