Jalisco's Ministry of Public Works halts Infonavit's plan to regularize invasions

The Citizen Movement (MC) party in Jalisco has categorically rejected Infonavit's federal plan, led by Octavio Romero, to regularize thousands of invaded homes. This stance opens a new front of confrontation between the state and federal governments.

A new and significant political battleground has opened between the Jalisco government and the federal government. The Citizen Movement (MC) party, which governs the state, has expressed its complete and outright rejection of the plan announced by the National Workers' Housing Fund Institute (Infonavit) to regularize illegally invaded properties.

The controversy arose after statements by Infonavit Director General Octavio Romero, who outlined his intention at a press conference to implement a new program aimed at the recovery and subsequent regularization of these homes, allowing current occupants to become owners.

"No to Regularization": MC Jalisco Takes a Stand on the Federal Plan

The position of the Citizen Movement in Jalisco is unequivocal: they will not support a measure that, in their view, validates an illegal act. Important figures in the party, although not directly mentioned in the initial announcement, have historically maintained a line of defense of legality and citizen participation, such as Senators Clemente Castañeda and Verónica Delgadillo, which contextualizes the party's philosophy.

MC's rejection is based on the defense of the rule of law and the protection of private property, principles they consider non-negotiable. The Orange Party views the federal measure as an incentive to illegality and an affront to workers who do fulfill their credit obligations.

Social Justice or Promotion of Illegality? The Two Sides of the Debate

This political confrontation reflects a fundamental ideological clash with profound social and economic ramifications.

* The Federal Position (Infonavit/Morena): The plan is framed within a discourse of social justice. It seeks to provide a solution for thousands of families living in precarious conditions and without legal certainty regarding their assets. The argument is that, instead of costly and lengthy eviction processes, it is preferable to find a way for these families to enter the formal sector, pay for their housing, and for Infonavit to recover part of its overdue loans.

* The State Position (MC Jalisco): The Jalisco government and its party argue that regularizing invasions is "rewarding illegality." They maintain that this measure creates a dangerous precedent that discourages compliance with the law and harms those who have followed legal channels to acquire a home. For them, defending the legal certainty of property ownership is a pillar for investment and the orderly development of the state.

"We cannot reward illegality. Legal certainty of ownership is fundamental to the development of Jalisco and to protecting the assets of workers who comply. Regularizing invasions would send the wrong message," could be the summary of the argument put forward by MC leaders.

The Human Impact: Families at the Center of the Conflict

Beyond the political dispute, thousands of people are at the center of this conflict. On one side are the families who occupy these homes, many of them in vulnerable situations, who see the federal plan as a unique opportunity to secure their homes. On the other side are the original beneficiaries, workers who at some point could no longer pay their loans and lost possession of their homes, and who now see how it could be handed over to third parties.

The final decision will have a direct impact on the lives of these people and the future of thousands of properties throughout Jalisco.

A Political Battle with a Social Background

MC Jalisco's refusal to support Infonavit's plan is not only a public policy difference, but a declaration of principles that defines its relationship with the federal government of Morena. This issue is emerging as one of the main points of contention on the state's political agenda, and its resolution (or lack thereof) will be a measure of the capacity for dialogue and negotiation between the two levels of government. The question that remains is whether a middle ground can be found that balances social justice with respect for the law.