In the United States, immigration is part of the country’s economic and social history, and millions of families who arrived from other places eventually became an essential part of American society. That fact is not disputed, nor is it disputed that politicians have realized how much they stand to gain by turning migrants into a voting bloc that must be courted, protected, or confronted, depending on what suits their interests at the time.
American social democracy has learned to engage with immigrant communities through an electoral strategy that blends representation, identity, and political promises. The calculation is simple: a community that can mobilize votes can also become an important asset in a campaign. The problem arises when that connection turns into a kind of political contract in which closeness to certain groups is presented as a permanent virtue, even as the candidate’s rhetoric shifts depending on the audience before them.
The Mexican case helps us better understand this contradiction. In New York, Zohran Mamdani was honored as part of the celebrations for Mexican Independence and shared the stage with a community proud of its roots. I see nothing wrong with a mayor participating in a cultural celebration, acknowledging his Mexican neighbors, or showing respect for a community that is part of the city. What bothers me is that politics has turned these gestures into tools for bolstering electoral ties, because then cultural identity runs the risk of becoming a campaign currency.
Many sought to compare this to JD Vance’s reaction during a speech in Dallas, but the vice president’s words stem from a different—and, in my opinion, more legitimate—concern.
A protester used a Mexican flag to disrupt a political event, and Vance argued that, at a gathering dedicated to this country’s politics, the American flag was the symbol that should take precedence. At a U.S. national political event, aimed at U.S. citizens and dedicated to the future of the United States, the primary national symbol must be the American flag.
That does not make the Mexican flag a hostile symbol, nor does it turn Mexicans into adversaries. A person can celebrate September 16, feel proud of their parents or grandparents, speak Spanish at home, and maintain a deep connection to Mexico. None of that prevents them from being a loyal U.S. citizen. That is precisely why it is important to separate culture, origin, and political affiliation, because conflating them plays right into the hands of those seeking votes.
Vance is defending an idea that I consider fundamental, even if it requires explanation today. Integration does not mean erasing a person’s background, nor does it mean asking the host country to renounce its own symbols to demonstrate tolerance. Those who come to the United States can preserve their customs, their language, and their family ties, while recognizing that the institutions, laws, and national priorities of the country in which they live are part of their new responsibility.
The left tends to view this issue differently when an election approaches, because then cultural diversity becomes an electoral issue and immigrant communities take center stage in partisan discourse. Later, when problems related to security, employment, housing, or undocumented immigration arise, the rhetoric shifts and the contradictions are laid bare. That political flexibility does not help immigrants, nor does it help the country.
Mexico deserves respect, Mexicans deserve respect, and immigrants deserve respect, but the United States also deserves to have its national identity hold an unquestionable place within its own politics. Vance may be blunt and may exaggerate, but on this point he raises an idea that I consider legitimate: belonging to a nation involves more than just reaping its benefits.
The Mexican community—or the immigrant community in general—does not need to become the Democrats’ electoral base, just as it does not need to be treated as a threat by the Republicans. It needs politics to stop using its identity as a campaign tool. And the United States needs something even simpler: for all its citizens to understand that they can honor where they come from without forgetting the country they chose to belong to.
