Mexico has a constitution that includes individual rights, but it says that only "every man has a right to enter the Republic, exit it, travel through its territory, and change his residence without the need of a security card, passport, or any similar device." Is this just older wording or is it discriminating? Article 1 of their Constitution mentions that every individual has this right. Everyone gets full protection of the law, bias-free education, protection of health, guaranteed housing, and children's rights. There are many more, but for convenience (both yours and mine), I will not mention them (their constitution is rather long).
In their constitution, it has a few awkward phrases that mentions the indigenous people, including the Tarahumara. In those phrases, it mentions that that dispositions can be applied to them. When used in this context, I believe it means to move or rearrange. To me, this indicates that as long as they have considered their "indigenous identity" as "fundamental criteria", they can move them for convenience. Maybe I interpret that wrong, but looking at the Tarahumara, I notice that they have basically become a tourist attraction because of the government in the area. I know that this isn't moving them, but it never mentions having to consult their indigenous populations when making decisions. The only requirement is that of taking into account their indigenous identity.
I think that the issue would be totally different with the Canadian Charter applied. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the Tarahumara would definitely have been consulted on whether or not they want to basically become a tourist attraction. That could mean, depending on the state of modernization they were in when the plans were approved, that they could still be true ultrarunners. As you've probably read in my previous posts regarding them, they now drink soda, and money matters now. Before, their economy was based entirely on corn-beer and random acts of kindness. I think that the General section of our charter would effect them the most. They would have land claims and thus be able to stop the government from making them into an effective tourist attraction. It is technically their land. I do acknowledge that it is not only the government making them a tourist attraction, but the publicity given to them by foreigners, including through my GINS novel. It is also logical to the government to make money from the Tarahumara. I mean, why not?