You are somewhat “preaching to the choir.” Descended from Native Americans myself, I too want to believe that “Indian land” should remain in the hands of the “Indians” – However… that is somewhat of a romantic notion on the part of those of us who do not live the lifestyle found on an ejido. Some love that land and will live there all of their lives. Their children will get degrees in environmental engineering, agriculture and forestry, then return to the land to become some of the most environmentally sound farmers in the world! However, for others, the dream is to have their children become whatever they want to be – and that often involves leaving the ejido for college and the outside world. There is no way I would want to trap them there and decree that, by an accident of birth, they must remain in the lifestyle of their ancestors. That isn’t right and it isn’t fair. Perhaps there is a middle ground somewhere, where all sides can reach for their dreams.

I’m really outraged by the casual tone of this article. Treating land that has rightfully been in the hands of indigenous people even before “wealthy landowners” came (much like greedy real estate investors) as an annoying “inconvenience” to investors is abhorrent. It’s much like treating the American Indians of this country like an “inconvenience” and then taking away land and decimating their population.

Please, people, read between the legalistic, benign-sounding lines to what this actually means for tons of peoples livelihoods. How would you like it if I swarmed down on your land – land your family have been on for hundreds of years – with a property title and told you that the contemporary legal system tells you you must vacate? This is land you farm, this is how you get your food. How would you survive?

Stop and think before you let the legalistic jargon crowd your brains.