Mexico has been a transcendental origin in the spirit and development of the Chicana/o community, not only as its country of origin but as a fundamental essence of its cultural, social, and political process. Mexico’s ties with their compatriots in the United States have been constant, intense, all-encompassing, and ever-present. Concretely, such links are immersed in historical events that date back to the mid-19th century and have continued to the very present era. Since the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, the number of Mexicans in the United States has been increasing and this community has consistently maintained the closest of ties with its homeland, Mexico, in terms of language, traditions, social patterns, politics, identity, and even way of life. The special relationship of the so-denoted “Two Mexicos” derives from the very closeness of its geographical proximity (Meinig 1971, pp. 3–9). The ill-defined U.S.-Mexican border separating the two countries was totally porous throughout the latter half of the 19th century and the beginnings of the 20th. Although Mexicans were not always welcomed in the United States, it was rather easy to get a visa and even the “green card” granted to permanent residents. Later on, even though the United States implemented more stringent policies on immigration, placing greater control of the border, the transboundary links between the “Two Mexicos” never ceased (Monsiváis 1995 pp. 435–455). Thus, people, commodities, and ideas have managed to cross the border continuously, and a variety of personal, familial, and business ties have flourished. Importantly, close to 80% of all Chicanas/os have resided less than 200 miles from the border. Yet, despite these profound links, there have existed two ill-founded and much-accepted notions that are paramount in this relationship: 1) that Chicanas/os and Mexicans who reside permanently in the United States have turned their back to Mexico, and their priority has been to assimilate at the cost of their Mexicanness; 2) that Mexico has not demonstrated much concern, interest, or curiosity in “El México Perdido” (the Lost Mexico); and thus, it has not drafted any major policies towards its diaspora in the United States (Maciel 1988, pp. 435–455).