Thank you for your response. I do understand that there is nothing in US law preventing them from collecting, but if they are collecting a debt, and the debt needs to be accurate, and if the debt or a material part of the contract is in dispute, don't they need to abide by the provisions of the contract? If the contract contains default procedures and jurisdiction as to where the parties must submit their grievances, how can a debt collector who should have a copy of the original contract, disregard the due process embedded within the terms and conditions of the contract and continue to collect. A Mexican lawyer can not sue a US collection company, so not much I can do there.
My other question is these contracts have default clauses. Meaning if the consumer defaults, "This is what will happen" Much like a automobile contract saying, in the event of default we will repossess the car, you will lose all you have paid to this point and could also be responsible to pay any deficiency judgement. Albeit, not a good scenario for the consumer, but a clear scenario of what to expect. As a consumer we have the right to default, whether in our best interest or not and we have the right to expect the provider to act according to the terms and conditions of default as well.
So how can sellers or providers, choose to side step default remedies in the contract in favor of other more successful remedies just because they are more successful but are not a material component of the contract? Its ridiculous that in a dispute the consumer has to fight it out in the jurisdiction of the contract origin and the Provider can attack the consumer here at home.
Thanks to both responders to my questions.

