Is it legal to buy a new car in Mexico and bring it back to the US?

[J N Winkler]

Wikipedia puts the break between using Third World to refer to nonaligned countries and using it exclusively to refer to developing countries/the Global South at around the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

These days I see Mexico referred to as a medium-income country.  It has relatively high GDP (PPP) per capita for a country traditionally counted among the Global South, and has made massive investments (especially in highway infrastructure) in the last 25 years.  However, it is still not a member of the of-course-drinkable-tap-water club, which is my personal favorite measure of high HDI.

About twenty or twenty-five years ago, when Turkey was still considered a promising candidate for EU accession, Lester Thurow wrote that Turkey was more likely to be accepted as an EU member than Mexico was to be taken into an immigration union with the US and Canada, because the gap in per capita GDP (PPP) between Turkey and the poorest country already in the EU was less than that between the poorest US state (Mississippi) and the richest Mexican state (one of the northern states--not sure if it was Chihuahua, Coahuila, or Nuevo Leon).  There has been a considerable amount of economic growth since then, though I am not sure there has been enough in the poorer countries to disturb this analysis.  Turkey is also not a member of the of-course-drinkable-tap-water club, although long-term residents have told me that trustworthiness of tap water there varies from city to city.

[vdeane]

Given the recent issues with water contamination (West Virginia, Flint, Hoosick Falls, anywhere with fracking, etc.), I wouldn't consider the US to be a member of the of-course-drinkable-tap-water club any more either.

[kkt]

Given the recent issues with water contamination (West Virginia, Flint, Hoosick Falls, anywhere with fracking, etc.), I wouldn't consider the US to be a member of the of-course-drinkable-tap-water club any more either.

You're right.  Sigh.

[noelbotevera]

Given the recent issues with water contamination (West Virginia, Flint, Hoosick Falls, anywhere with fracking, etc.), I wouldn't consider the US to be a member of the of-course-drinkable-tap-water club any more either.

Heck even my school had this problem with the brown murky water. A water main broke near the school and thus we had problems with the water, and we were told not to drink from the fountains. There's still a weird taste to the water whenever I drink it, so it's possible that there's something iffy there.

[US 41]

I don't drink tap water at all unless its from my hometown. If I'm out of town I buy bottled water or a soft drink.

[kkt]

Rome was famous in antiquity for its excellent water from the aqueducts, and the Popes who restored the aqueducts to working order in the renaissance were considered to be heroes.  The water is perfectly drinkable now and pretty good tasting.  Yet when you order water in a restaurant in Rome, they bring bottled water.  I suppose so they can charge 4 Euro for it.

[vdeane]

I think some of it's cultural... I've heard that, in Europe, it's customary for the waiter to bring your cup with ice and your drink in the can/bottle, and you pour it yourself.  This is probably to be consistent with that.

[jakeroot]

I think some of it's cultural... I've heard that, in Europe, it's customary for the waiter to bring your cup with ice and your drink in the can/bottle, and you pour it yourself.  This is probably to be consistent with that.

(As I'm sure you're aware) most countries outside of North America don't offer free refills; when I was in the UK, most of my drinks came on-ice. But the continentals may do it differently. Perhaps to make the idea of refills not being free easier to understand, they just bring the bottle or can -- if you want another, you buy another.

[vdeane]

I think I first heard it in middle school Spanish class, so it might just be Spain, but I would guess it's a continental thing.  I heard it was to prevent the drink from becoming watery as the ice melts.

[kphoger]

I think this is pertinent to the conversation, posted by a reliable source just five days ago.  FYI, an amparo is a special judicial action which had allowed some un-import-able vehicles import-ability to México.  The process whereby this was happening allowed people to steal vehicles in the USA and import them into México before the database caught up with them.  This is the kind of thing you have to understand in order to wrap your head around the vehicle importation rules in México.

Prior to Sept. 2014, Aduana did not check to see if American-titled vehicles had been legally exported from the US.

As a part of a US-CBP + Aduana effort to stop auto theft gangs from moving stolen cars across the border, Aduana cracked down on a number of dubious amparos - arresting the judge(s) who issued them, cancelled the amparos, jailed a number of Mexican customs brokers & 'facilitators' ... and jailed Aduana agents who also helped facilitate the prior years of illegal auto permanent imports under those amparos. [One such facilitator] reported that the Aduana office processing her special amparo auto-import deals had all of her records seized and put on lock-down.

That's how [she] got some gringo cars caught in the web of prosecutions ... with no plates, no pedimentos, and no refunds for over a year, according to [her] Facebook page.

Because the car theft gangs found that when they moved a car into Mexico in just a day after being stolen, (permanently imported under [her] prior amparo), they realized that the Mexican & US police databases of stolen cars were not being updated for 2-3 days - giving the thieves a window of time to use the amparo, without the stolen cars showing up in police databases.

The US CBP put pressure on Aduana to close this loophole. In Sept 2014 Aduana responded by implementing a NEW requirement that EVERY American-titled vehicle have it's US title clearly stamped as 'CANCELLED' by CBP.

Since CBP rules since 1994 required that American-titled vehicles be put 'on-hold' for 72 hrs, to check US police databases for the legal status of the vehicle ... when Aduana adopted the rule to have every US-titled vehicle have its title stamped 'cancelled' before being allowed to be processed for permanent import into Mexico... that basically closed the car-thieves loophole.

Note that US CBP issued a formal technical ruling in 2015 that a US-titled vehicle taken out of the USA for more than [twelve] continuous months, should be formally exported. We know of no examples of enforcement of this rule in the meantime ... but know that the Federal Law on this provides for a minimum of $500 in fines and being convicted of a Federal Felony if caught.

[This] leaves people taking their US-titled vehicles into Mexico as pseudo-imports ... at risk of both US felony convictions ... and potentially having their cars seized, if [their faciliator's] amparo gets cancelled.

Also note that [this facilitator's] process opens the same loophole that cross-border auto-theft gangs used in the past (by ignoring the US legal CBP required export process) ... it seems to support potential auto thefts - triggering potential future government crackdowns - as happened to her in 2014 through 2015

As you can see, there are concerted and internationally cooperative efforts to ensure people do not leave vehicles in México that weren't properly imported.  The system is actively seeking to prevent people from succeeding in precisely the kind of endeavor being suggested in this thread.  Felony charges, thousands of dollars in fines, and jail time are all very real possibilities for those found in violation of the law here.

[jakeroot]

México...México...México...México

I know we aren't supposed to comment on grammar, but I'm going to anyway: you don't need to put an accent over the "e" when you're writing in English. México is Spanish. Mexico is English. Given that the rest of what you wrote was in English, it's better to not use the accent. It's the equivalent of writing "España" over and over again, instead of Spain.

That said, I can tell you understand Spanish far better than I do, so if you disagree, by all means keep using the accent (let me know if my assessment of the issue here is incorrect, as well).

[US 41]

Someone mentioned that most countries don't offer free refills on drinks outside of North America. So do most places in Mexico offer free refills? I've never really considered this before. 

[briantroutman]

I think some of it's cultural... I've heard that, in Europe, it's customary for the waiter to bring your cup with ice and your drink in the can/bottle, and you pour it yourself.  This is probably to be consistent with that.

(As I'm sure you're aware) most countries outside of North America don't offer free refills; when I was in the UK, most of my drinks came on-ice. But the continentals may do it differently. Perhaps to make the idea of refills not being free easier to understand, they just bring the bottle or can -- if you want another, you buy another.

I think I first heard it in middle school Spanish class, so it might just be Spain, but I would guess it's a continental thing.  I heard it was to prevent the drink from becoming watery as the ice melts.

Someone mentioned that most countries don't offer free refills on drinks outside of North America. So do most places in Mexico offer free refills? I've never really considered this before. 

Since the topic at hand (importing a Nissan Tsuru) has run its course, hopefully the OP won't mind me making an off-topic comment.

The whole pour it yourself/no refills business doesn't have its roots in some esoteric old world/new world cultural divide or anything of the sort. It's much simpler.

The vast majority of restaurants in the U.S.–from franchised Chili's and Applebee's locations to neighborhood diners and local sandwich shops–have soda fountains. Once a restaurant has paid a local beverage distributor to install the necessary equipment, the restauranteur's marginal cost to provide refills is almost zero. On top of that, the menu price for a fountain beverage is usually high enough that, even with multiple refills, the beverage remains a highly profitable portion of the total check.

Elsewhere in the world, soda fountains are not nearly as prevalent–and since refills cost the restauranteur a measurable amount, they're not free. Your server could simply pre-pour the bottle or can for you, but the ice would begin diluting the beverage before you might be ready to drink it (as was mentioned), and also there is a generally established practice of providing products which come in single-serve containers directly to the customer (creamers, butter/jam containers, wine and beer bottles). With a fountain, the server has no choice but to pre pour.

And as further evidence: If you go into a hole in the wall pizza joint or Chinese restaurant in the U.S. that doesn't have a soda fountain, you'll get the European treatment.

That's not to say that soda fountains don't exist outside the U.S.–they do. But they enjoyed much greater popularity in the U.S., first through drugstores and later in restaurants. Coupled with the American "more and cheaper is better"  ethic (also less prevalent elsewhere, particularly in Europe), the soda's low cost led to the use of free refills as a marketing ploy in the war to attract Middle America's dining dollars. Once FREE REFILLS became fully entrenched in the American psyche, how could any restauranteur roll back to the pay-as-you-go past? It would be akin to a midlevel motel NOT offering the "complimentary continental breakfast"  that was unheard of a few decades ago–no matter how stale or puny that breakfast might be.

[kphoger]

I think the only restaurant I've been to in México that had a serve-yourself soda fountain was a Burger King in Monclova, Coahuila. At all other pay-ahead restaurants I've been to, you are handed a bottle from behind the counter upon ordering, and refills (more bottles) cost extra (including Subway and Church's Chicken locations I've been to). Nicer sit-down restaurants do sometimes offer free refills, but even those are often in the form of a bottle delivered to your table. As already mentioned, the prevalence of soda fountains is noticeably less there than here.

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right." Should I call the African country Côte d'Ivoire, Cote d'Ivoire, or Ivory Coast? Should I call the German city Düsseldorf , Duesseldorf, or Dusseldorf?  Should I call the Brazilian city São Paulo or Sao Paulo? Should I call the Canadian province Québec or Quebec?  Should I call the Spanish city Málaga or Malaga? I think most people would be fine with either one in all those cases, but maybe I'm wrong. It's not like I'm saying Ísland instead of Iceland, Wien instead of Vienna, or Cameroun instead of Cameroon. All in doing is adding the diacritic

[Jbte]

Someone mentioned that most countries don't offer free refills on drinks outside of North America. So do most places in Mexico offer free refills? I've never really considered this before.

Yes, in some restaurants (mostly all in certain beverages such sodas and prepared), they do offer refills, fast food restaurants it's a must like KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, Carls Jr and so.

[J N Winkler]

It is a fuzzy topic indeed, and in the past I have written México in English, but I think I would omit the diacritic in this case because it is just uncommon enough in English to rub against native English speakers.

I would suggest a decision rule:  given a choice between a name with and without diacritic, use the one without the diacritic (in English writing) if it returns more hits on an English-speaking Google and usages without the diacritic are in the majority of the first ten or so hits.  By this test "Mexico" clearly wins out over "México":  1.29 billion without diacritic versus 736 million with diacritic, and none of the top results features "México."  "Düsseldorf" also wins out over "Dusseldorf":  the number of hits is approximately the same (105 million with, 121 million without), but the majority of the top hits when searching without the umlaut do spell the name with the umlaut.  (While native German speakers do insert the e after vowels in contexts where the umlaut is unavailable, e.g. 128-character ASCII, I try to steer clear of this because it can lead to hypercorrection, e.g. "Göbbels.")  Similarly, "Côte d'Ivoire" wins out over "Cote d'Ivoire" because the latter returns fewer hits (111 million versus 156 million), although the top hits for both are fairly evenly mixed between the forms with and without circumflex.

[Scott5114]

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right."

Don't forget Hawaii versus Hawai'i. One of my friends is ethnic Hawaiian and insists on including the apostrophe, which represents a glottal stop.

[Brandon]

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right."

Don't forget Hawaii versus Hawai'i. One of my friends is ethnic Hawaiian and insists on including the apostrophe, which represents a glottal stop.

It's called an "okina", and is an essential part of Hawai'ian.

[noelbotevera]

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right."

Don't forget Hawaii versus Hawai'i. One of my friends is ethnic Hawaiian and insists on including the apostrophe, which represents a glottal stop.

It's called an "okina", and is an essential part of Hawai'ian.

I can finally correct everyone at school and all of those maps that it's really "Hawai'i". And that Google auto correction software is always wrong.

[Scott5114]

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right."

Don't forget Hawaii versus Hawai'i. One of my friends is ethnic Hawaiian and insists on including the apostrophe, which represents a glottal stop.

It's called an "okina", and is an essential part of Hawai'ian.

I can finally correct everyone at school and all of those maps that it's really "Hawai'i". And that Google auto correction software is always wrong.

Maybe hold off, though, unless you're prepared to also insist that the maps show "Deutschland"...

[jakeroot]

Regarding the spelling of México versus Mexico... This is a fuzzy topic when it comes to what's "right."

Don't forget Hawaii versus Hawai'i. One of my friends is ethnic Hawaiian and insists on including the apostrophe, which represents a glottal stop.

It's called an "okina", and is an essential part of Hawai'ian.

I can finally correct everyone at school and all of those maps that it's really "Hawai'i". And that Google auto correction software is always wrong.

Maybe hold off, though, unless you're prepared to also insist that the maps show "Deutschland"...

Yep. The legal state name is Hawaii. Spelling it with an apostrophe is incorrect. That said, the islands are legally the Hawai'ian Island, and the big island is Hawai'i. But the state name? Hawaii.

[freebrickproductions]

I have to ask, if you buy a car in a foreign country with stricter standards than the US, are you allowed to import it into the US? I'd assume so, since it'd likely be able to meet the minimum requirements for cars here in the US with ease.

[briantroutman]

I have to ask, if you buy a car in a foreign country with stricter standards than the US, are you allowed to import it into the US? I'd assume so, since it'd likely be able to meet the minimum requirements for cars here in the US with ease.

Short answer: no. It's not a matter of having stricter standards or looser standards, it's a matter of meeting exact specifications.

For example, European lighting standards have long allowed the use of much higher output halogen headlamps that used a removable bulb with a fixed reflector built into the car. But the use of these superior headlamps was illegal in the U.S., where inferior sealed beam headlights–1930s technology–were made mandatory in 1940. It wasn't until 1983 that the U.S. allowed the use of aerodynamic headlamps.

Apparently, my own car (a 7th gen. Volkswagen Golf) had its tail lamps redesigned (and made inferior) for the U.S. market. European models get tail lamp clusters with brighter LED brake lights and inset amber LED turn signals–both features that make the car more conspicuous and therefore safer. But apparently, the U.S. standard requires an arbitrary "square inches of illuminated area"  which the European designed cluster doesn't meet. So what do U.S.-bound Golfs get? Incandescent red tail lamps and signals which merely flash the red tail lamp on the side you're turning–yes, like 1940 Chevy.

[J N Winkler]

This is tangential, but I actually rather wish we would abolish the carve-out for red rear turn signals; the last car I had with them was a 1978 Chevrolet Impala.  The only area of automotive lighting regulation where I would have serious concerns about harmonizing with international regulations is cornering lamps, which are apparently forbidden overseas (and not nearly as common on cars sold in the US market as they were in the 1980's--my last car with cornering lamps was a 1986 Nissan Maxima).

[jakeroot]

Apparently, my own car (a 7th gen. Volkswagen Golf) had its tail lamps redesigned (and made inferior) for the U.S. market. European models get tail lamp clusters with brighter LED brake lights and inset amber LED turn signals–both features that make the car more conspicuous and therefore safer. But apparently, the U.S. standard requires an arbitrary "square inches of illuminated area"  which the European designed cluster doesn't meet. So what do U.S.-bound Golfs get? Incandescent red tail lamps and signals which merely flash the red tail lamp on the side you're turning–yes, like 1940 Chevy.

I too am an owner of a Golf "7", and this particular feature drives me crazy, even if I never see the tail lamps blink. I do see myself replacing the lights on the vehicle with the European lamps in the future.