What Orthodox Churches are allowed by the Canons to create dioceses and mantain clergy outside the territorial jurisdiction they were given by the respective tomos.
1. For example, the tomos of autocephaly (valid or not it doesn't matter) given by the Patriarchate of Moscow to the Orthodox Church in America states:The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate
I believe this is the reason why there is an Exarchate in Mexico and not a diocese, since Mexico is not part of the canonical territory of the OCA, but then whose is?
Mons. Alejo is Bishop of the Apostolic Orthodox Church in Mexico and Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas is the Exarch according to the OCA website (just as there is a bishop of the Ukrainians under the EP in the USA but the Exarch is that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
The fact that the OCA has received the Exarchate is very logical as we're located in the same continent, the EP also has dioceses abroad which is also logical as the EP is suposed to hold jurisdiction in lands that were not Orthodox or who are "no-one's" territory.
But are other Churches allowed to do the same?
2. The Antiochian Church has dioceses in this continent for its faithful. If they recognize the autocephaly of the OCA why do they have dioceses and bishops in the US? After all most of the AOC faithful there are no longer Arabs. The MP itself disolved its diocese when the OCA was declared independent.
In Europe the Church of Romania does not have a dioces for its faithful in Poland where they go to the local Orthodox communities, the Russian Church does not have dioceses in Greece and so on.
3. Spanish and Portuguese clergy who had been under obscure Old-Calendarist groups and where denied entrance by the EP were received by the Orthodox Church of Poland as an ecclesiastical province that covers Brasil, Portugal and Spain with one bishop for each country! (the EP, in addition, has a Metropolitan of Portugal).http://www.orthodox.pl/glowna.htm
4. Are all Orthodox Churches allowed to appoint metropolitans and bishops in this continent no matter if they are Patriarchal Churches or not? If the Orthodox Church of Poland does this, why wouldn't the Church of Albania or the Church of Czechia receive Colombian or Ecuadorian clergy as part of their Churches?
The Orthodox Church in Ecuador now has a bishop, consecrated by an uncanonical Church in Ukraine (a former Antiochian priest who was defrocked for political reasons), but his Church is neverthless the only Orthodox Church in Ecuador (their hierarch has concelebrated with Romanian Orthodox in Romania for example) and they are opening real Orthodox monasteries and chapels.
It's not healthy for this Church to be under an uncanonical cyber-jurisdiction such as the "Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church in America". It would be possitve if Canonical Orthodoxy receives them.
The Orthodox Church of Ecuador, the Exarchate of Mexico and the Church of Brasil-Portugal-Spain have more faithful than the EP and Russian dioceses, they attract the local people, they have opened monasteries and chapels with native clergy who have moral authority and do not engage in politics. Isn't this what cares?
It's urgent for the Churches here to agree on terms of jurisdiction and to create a sollution, a common synod of Bishops for this continent.