Job Discussion Forums

[ChitownBadger]

I guess I have two main questions. First of all, do all of you down there pay attention to State Department warnings? Follow them closely? Read, but not follow necessarily? Ignore completely?

Second, I noticed that at least a few people are in Oaxaca. Given the recent (as in today) warning about Oaxaca, and some of the press that I've already seen following it, how worried are people about their safety in Oaxaca, Nuevo Larredo, Guerrero, and other states right now? It sounds to me like, being all drug-related, U.S. nationals are, if anything, the accidental victims of the violence, certainly not the targets, but coming from people who are actually down there, how does the political and drug related violence affect your opinions of your own safety in Mexico right now?

[Guy Courchesne]

I like to see those State Department (as well as Canada's Foreign Affairs) warnings as 'there, we've covered our ass, so don't complain later or even think about suing us'. Most of the warnings, while not to be ignored, fail to give a full account...and why should they? They aren't a news department or arbiter of such things.

That said, keeping up on the news from a variety of sources would give you more complete picture. The best advice I can think of is - don't get involved in Mexican affairs such as politics, law, or drugs. I'd go so far as to guess that any US victims of 'drug-related' or political violence are not exactly accidental - some people get involved and pay the price. US citizens using or running drugs in the north - fair game really once you decide to walk the dark path.

Oaxaca is a rather unique situation and not your typical day in sunny southern Mexico. One US journalist was shot and killed because he was a novice risk-taker covering a dangerous situation. Anyone else deciding to get involved in Mexican politics really shouldn't be surprised to find themselves jailed and deported, since it is against the law to do so.

I have no fear for my safety whatsoever...why? I'm not drug-runner or user, and I restrict my political commentary to a blog and this here forum.

[ls650]

Yep, there's violent crime in Mexico, but 95% of that violence is drug-related. If you consider alcohol a drug, maybe 99%. Actually I imagine that's true in most countries.

Stay away from the drugs, kiddies.

[thelmadatter]

The State Dept. has something of a reputation among ex-pats of having something of a "nanny" attitude... a bit over-protective, perhaps even hysterical?

Generally I feel these warnings (which I get directly in my email as I am registered with my embassy - ya never know, cant hurt) are worth reading but shouldnt be your only reason to determine if a place is safe enough to visit/live in or not. Start with them then do a little digging on the Net. Then make a decision for yourself. I wont go anywhere near Oaxaca City right now (and a shame it is) but I have no qualms about riding the bus up to the border towns. I also had no problems walking around near the "AMLO summer camp" this past summer either but I kept my distance from the active protests.

Although it aint common, a little common sense goes a long way.

[MELEE]

[eclectic]

The US state dept isssues many politically-motivated warnings. It is yet another way for america to be arrogant and to hold peoples' hands who want to be "free". I traveled through El Salvador BY MYSELF, AT NIGHT, for 10 days, roaming freely without incident. I do not SUBSCRIBE TO THE US's FRIGHT AND PANIC CAMPAIGN. I would stroll right through Algiers, Tripoli, Tehran, and even Khartoum without fear. *beep* the state department's propaganda.

[mapache]

I agree the US State Department travel warnings are sometimes politically motivated. When I lived in Chiapas, for example, I always felt pretty safe and wondered why the State Department had a travel warning based on events with the Zapatistas over 12 years ago. My Mexican friend thought it was politically motivated to help justify a big Mexican army presence and CIA involvement.

[danielita]

The state department warnings are definitely there so that they cover their butts. They lean toward apocalyptic warnings when it is usually not that bad. Risk is relative, if you know the area, the culture, politics and overall situation, you can determine if it is worth the risk to travel there.

[lozwich]

I know its a different country, but think it applies...

Some months ago the US State Department (that's which 'state' we're talking about, right? ) in Colombia posted a fairly hefty warning on its website about the threat of a bomb in the north of Bogota, particularly in shopping centres and/or centres of entertainment (in the north there's lots of parks with bars and stuff) and that all US citizens should stay away from there (never mind that most of the US Embassy staff actually live in this area). This in turn got posted on the British government's travel advisory site, and warnings were sent to embassy staff about not visiting those areas (even though British embassy staff live in that exact area too!). The warning said that the bomb was targeted at foreigners, so all of them should be in a state of alert at all times.

The mayor of Bogota was quoted in the newpaper as saying this was all a load of old hooey, and that the Colombian police had no idea where this 'intelligence' had come from (their quotes, not mine), and people should go forth and enjoy their shops and bars just as much as usual.

About 3 weeks later, there was a bomb, but it was a car bomb in a military university and was either directed at some big general fellow who was there, or as some people think, was a plant so that the president had an excuse to crack down on the FARC.

I didn't check on the US site, but there was not a peep out of the British site about it! This is about the 3rd or 4th time I've had these kinds of warnings in the time I've been here, and the first time its actually resulted in anything even vaguely connected to what the warning is about.

A large grain of salt please!

[Guy Courchesne]

Lots of room for conspiracy there. I think it best to remember that if authorities knew exactly when and where a bomb is to go off, they'll not bother posting a warning but simply arrest the bomber. The State Department warnings come when there are rumours.

[business2300]

The way I see it is that I feel fortunate to have my government alert me if something might be possibly brewing... Some may look at it as 'overprotection' , but that's just an insecure way of perceiving it.

There have been several alerts that I remember involving Northern Mexico. I began watching for news ever since.. I can't tell you how many times I've read about a kidnapping / abduction , a police chief assassination, etc.... in the border towns.. It is certainly not a place to feel safe, and I'm glad to hear they are sending a 'heads up' ....

[MamaOaxaca]

[business2300]

The reason I replied was to say that I think any alerts are beneficial.

I wasn't under the impression that the thread was concerning any conditions that exist in the US. Wasn't this thread meant to discuss governmental alerts to travelers who might like to be given a 'heads up'?

[ls650]

[business2300]

In reality, it sounds like it was taken as an opportunity to do some bashing.

I was only refering to the border cities, and was not refering to other parts of Mexico. I guess sending military into both Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo is only normal practice. How about the 10 decapitated heads rolling on the dance floor in Alcapulco? Just how did they get away? A lack of serving and protecting? Or police involvement with the narcotics outfits? Peaceful and safe?

Regardless of how political it may or may not be ... a US traveler, or any other foreign traveler for that matter, can only benefit from being aware of such an alert .... and can make a personal judgement after looking into the situation on their own.