Spain's Congress bans 'MENA' term as stigmatizing

Congress bans «MENA» and the euphemism runs out of words

The Bureau of Spain's Congress has approved a text to avoid using the term «MENA» because it is considered likely to stigmatize the group it designates. The decision, driven by Chamber President Francina Armengol, turns an acronym that was not born in a rally but in administrative protocols into sensitive material: MENA, standing for Unaccompanied Foreign Minors. The paradox is textbook. The word they want to banish was the one the institutional apparatus itself circulated to avoid others.

The issue also comes wrapped in a comparative grievance that has quickly been pointed out. The same Bureau that reprimands Santiago Abascal for calling Pedro Sánchez a «traitor» allows Félix Bolaños to call Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo a «liar». Two standards in the same session. That contrast, more than the word itself, is what has ignited the debate.

Where does the now-banned acronym come from?

The term is not an invention of talk shows. It appears in care protocols of the Juvenile Prosecutor's Office, police, Civil Guard, and medical services, as recalled in the debate itself. It designates minors who arrive in the country without a legal guardian, an administrative category before an insult. Hence the contradiction many underline: if the word is removed, the concept remains on the table and someone will have to name it.

The trajectory of the euphemism is almost a laboratory experiment. First, «unaccompanied foreign minors» was said. Then it was abbreviated to MENA. When the acronym started appearing in crime news, «youths» was used. And «youth» ended up carrying the same tone. Some state it bluntly: any term used to name a phenomenon with negative impact ends up acquiring the connotation, through pure statistical association in the news.

The precedent of «blind», «disabled» and «functional diversity»

This is not the first time reality is tried to be fixed by changing the label. The sequence repeats: «blind» was replaced by «visually impaired», «retarded» by «disabled», and this by «functional diversity». Each replacement was born with a vocation for neutrality and each replacement ended up sounding like the previous one. Neologisms do not erase the fact they designate; they only postpone the moment when the new word becomes contaminated.

That is the most repeated argument: lexical censorship does not touch the problem, it disguises it. If the term appears again and again in negative news, the stigmatization does not come from the dictionary, it comes from usage. Banning the word does not change the event.

Who decides what can be said in Congress?

Here the debate becomes institutional. The Chamber's Bureau is an internal governing body, not a language regulator. Some argue that a deputy can say whatever they want and no one can silence them; against this weighs the argument that the Presidency orders the debate and can set language criteria. The discussion about the real scope of that veto remains open.

The core issue is fundamental: if the problem is not lexical, banning the lexicon is a cosmetic solution. And if the problem is real, removing the word that names it makes it harder to discuss, not easier to solve.

---

The scene remains. A chamber that legislates on how to call things and cannot agree on how to name them. The acronym came from an official protocol. Now a Bureau removes it. In the middle, the phenomenon stays exactly where it was.