Rather than work to preserve national sovereignty and protect America, a handful of foreign-born representatives are actively undermining immigration enforcement and encouraging lawlessness.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who was born in India and naturalized in 2000, issued a call to action to oppose immigration enforcement, saying: “We are here to say, ‘Free the immigrants that have been arrested.’ We are here to say, ‘End the ICE raids!'”
Her comments come as violent riots erupt in Los Angeles in opposition to immigration enforcement measures. Rioters have attacked police vehicles, thrown fireworks at officers on horseback, looted, and disrupted traffic — all while waving the Mexican flag and burning the American flag.
Jayapal’s comments were echoed by California Rep. Norma Torres (who was born in Guatemala and became a citizen in 1992), who threatened that chaos would continue until ICE leaves Los Angeles.
“ICE, get the f-ck out of L.A. so that order can be restored,” Torres said.
Torres and Jayapal’s comments follow a string of comments made over the years by Somali-born Rep. Ilhan Omar, who reportedly went so far as to make a video tutorial for how illegal aliens should evade ICE.
When foreign-born politicians use their platform to shield illegal aliens, they reveal their loyalties lie not with the American people but with foreigners. These are not isolated judgments either. They are ideological positions grounded in a worldview that sees America not as a nation to be protected but a country to be fundamentally remade.
And herein lies the danger of allowing foreign-born citizens to hold elected office.
Alexander Hamilton explained in 1802 that “the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
Hamilton cautioned how it is “extremely unlikely” that foreigners “will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism” and that foreigners will “entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived.”
The threat of foreign bias was strong enough that some Founders openly warned of the dangers of permitting foreigners to hold public office.
In a letter to George Washington, John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”
Members of the Constitutional Convention debated on Aug. 13, 1787, about how long an immigrant needs to be a citizen before he could become a member of the House of Representatives. Elbridge Gerry “wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us and insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purpose.”
James Madison “wished to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” But he believed (perhaps naively) that while there were dangers associated with foreigners “obtain[ing] appointments,” it would not happen in “any dangerous degree.” Madison opined that “our own people [would] prefer natives of this Country to [foreigners],” thereby remedying his concern.
Unfortunately, Madison could never have imagined that the United States would be the epicenter of mass Third-World migration.
The Founders envisioned a future America that remained culturally and civically united. A nation in which elected representatives would possess an undivided loyalty to the United States, grounded not merely in legal status, but shared value, tradition, and culture. That vision assumed a citizenry — and especially a political class — that would promote whatever is best for the nation’s survival. In this case, that would be enforcement of immigration laws and mass deportations.
But a republic cannot endure when leaders do not see themselves as stewards of a specific people, culture, and nation. When foreign-born lawmakers champion the causes of foreigners over Americans, they make clear their loyalties are divided and, in some cases, not aligned with the future of the country they claim to represent.