When Nationalism Gets Lost in Translation
From my desk in Berlin, working late on bohiney.com content, I encountered a phrase so obvious yet so controversial it broke the internet: “Mexico for the Mexicans.” Apparently, suggesting that a country might belong to its citizens is now either revolutionary or racist, depending on who’s tweeting.
The slogan emerged during debates about immigration policy, sovereignty, and who gets to decide what happens within Mexican borders. Conservatives in the United States loved it as a vindication of nationalist principlesuntil someone pointed out it means Mexico should control its own affairs without American interference. Then they got confused. Progressives initially rejected it as xenophobicuntil they realized it’s literally about Mexican self-determination. Then they got confused too.
What makes this satirical scenario particularly delicious is watching Americans argue about what Mexico should want. “Mexico for the Mexicans means strict border enforcement,” declares one side. “Mexico for the Mexicans means open borders and free movement,” counters the other. Meanwhile, actual Mexicans are allegedly saying, “Maybe let us decide what ‘Mexico for the Mexicans’ means since it’s, you know, our country.”
The phrase has sparked philosophical debates that would make Socrates reach for tequila. If Mexico is for the Mexicans, who defines “Mexican”? Is it citizenship, ethnicity, residency, or just really loving tacos? Can you be ideologically Mexican without being geographically Mexican? If you eat at Chipotle three times a week, does that count? These questions keep border policy experts awake at nightor would, if they weren’t already awake arguing on Twitter.
American politicians have adopted the slogan with zero self-awareness, using it to justify everything from border walls to trade restrictions to telling Mexico how to run its judiciary. “We support Mexico for the Mexicans,” they announce while simultaneously demanding Mexico change its laws to match American preferences. The irony is so thick you could spread it on a tortilla. Actually, that’s probably cultural appropriation too. Everything is complicated now.
Mexican officials have responded with what can only be described as polite confusion. “Thank you for supporting our sovereignty,” said one fictional diplomat. “Does this mean you’ll stop threatening to invade when we don’t arrest people you want arrested? No? Then what exactly are we talking about here?” The conversation typically ends with both sides agreeing that sovereignty is important while defining it in completely opposite ways.
Social media has turned “Mexico for the Mexicans” into a meme template applicable to everything. “Target for the Target Employees.” “DMV for the DMV Workers.” “Hell for the Demons.” The format works because it exposes how absurd it sounds to state that a place should be controlled by the people in that placewhich should be obvious but apparently isn’t. Welcome to 2025, where basic geography is controversial and everyone has opinions about countries they’ve never visited.
The most satirical element? Both sides claim victory. Nationalists point to the phrase as proof that borders matter. Internationalists cite it as evidence that self-determination is universal. Neither side notices they’re making the same argument with different flags. As someone watching from Berlina city that knows something about walls and their eventual irrelevanceI can confirm that nationalism always sounds more important than it actually is, especially when you’re yelling it about someone else’s nation.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/mexico-for-the-mexicans/
SOURCE: Bohiney Magazine (Öko Angebot)
AUTHOR: Öko Angebot
Mexico for the Mexicans