Here’s a striking statistic: A third of all Washington, D.C., district judges (known for anti-Trump rulings) are foreign-born. Does this matter?

It certainly may if they’re anything like hard-left representative Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). She said in Spanish at a recent Mexico City summit, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.”

Then there’s Representative Deqa Dhalac (D-Maine), who was the first female Somali-born mayor in the U.S. In a resurfaced video clip, she can be heard saying, while wearing her hijab, that she wants to “help our country” (referencing Somalia). She did catch herself and follow the quoted phrase with, “our former country Somalia.” But is it really “former” in her heart? You can decide.

But Dhalac is moderate compared to another hijab-wearing representative, Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). She stated last year, addressing Somalis in a public forum:

Sleep in comfort, knowing I am here to protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system.

She’d also confidently said at the forum that “the U.S. Government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else.” Of course, perhaps this was true under Joe Biden. Can we blame her for being honest?

Some will ask, “Why, if they love their native country so much, don’t they go back there?” But we all know the answer. They’re in our country — and it is our country — for convenience. They want the comforts, the wealth, the security, the freedom and, in these politicians’ cases, the power. But they don’t actually want to become “one flesh” with America. It is much like a marriage of convenience, too. They go through the motions with their spouse, their “partner” (like it’s a business arrangement), because he’s a sugar daddy. But at the same time they’re carrying on an affair with their true love. And should the guy providing the lavish lifestyle fall on hard times, well, he’ll be left to soldier on alone.

As for at-heart Guatemalan Ramirez, she’s illustrative of our immigration problems. “She is an anchor baby who was born to Guatemalan illegal aliens in Chicago,” The New American pointed out Tuesday. “Indeed, her husband is an illegal alien.”

Commenting on this, USA Today op-ed writer Ingrid Jacques wrote Wednesday:

It’s hard to think of another country where a first-generation citizen could go from poverty to the halls of Congress. That’s not enough, however, to win Ramirez’s loyalty over the corrupt country her parents escaped.

Of course not. You can’t buy loyalty any more than you can love — only the pretense of it. As with a spoiled child, giving a low-character individual handouts, power, and privilege only intensifies a spirit of entitlement.

Jacques later added:

Members of Congress take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and promise they will “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

Ramirez’s comment on the world stage seems to defy that oath.

True. But an oath can’t change a heart any more than a passport can.

Is Ramirez, though, really the problem? An MSN commenter responding to Jacques’ article, Justin Emigh, may not think so. As he wrote:

It’s less disturbing that she said it and more disturbing that she thinks she can say it without consequence.

For sure, and some words from author Taylor Caldwell (incorrectly and routinely attributed to Roman statesman Cicero) are relevant here. “For the traitor appears no traitor,” she wrote, warning of treason’s insidiousness. He “speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments.” … [And] the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys….”

My, this now almost seems quaint. As with Omar, Dhalac, and so many others, enemies within no longer have to display our face, garments, and accents. They no longer have to whisper slyly, but can effect anti-American agitation openly. Harking back to the marriage analogy, they needn’t indulge their infidelity in secret. This is an “open marriage,” where they can enjoy the posh home and no-limit credit card while boasting of their affairs. And the cuckold of a spouse (us) sits back and takes it.

How did we get to this point? First, suicidal immigration policies have allowed our foreign-born population (both legal and illegal) to swell to 53.3 million. This is 15.8 percent of our total population, or just a bit more than three out of every 20 people. And both these figures are record highs, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

Second, during these migrations we’ve allowed what is, essentially, the importation of entire foreign cultures into our midst. As University of Edinburgh Professor Stephen Tierney pointed out years ago, it’s one thing if immigrants are themselves sufficiently diverse. If no great number hail from any one culture, they are then divided. Consequently, they can only find unity by assimilating into the host culture. They cannot challenge their new nation’s culture, language, and institutions, but must work within them.

This is not the case, however, when people from one country or culture come — or are imported — in large numbers. They then can establish their own institutions and a country within our country. Think here of Univision. Think of pressing one for English. Think of cities in Minnesota and Maine where the Somali population is so high that they can elect Somali representatives. It can get worse, too. In France in 2017, author Christian de Moliner suggested that his nation essentially be divided, with the creation of a quasi-Sharia state within its borders, to avoid civil war with its Muslims.

There’s more to it as well. We’ve too long treated immigrants like robots, instead of asking: Are they culturally assimilable? We also have, owing to moral decay, failed to provide something attractive to assimilate into.

Part of this decay, too, has been the indoctrination of Americans with anti-American ideology. Why would you encourage assimilation if you believe your country is some misbegotten, racist land? Why would you encourage it if your multiculturalist dogma states that you have no right to? Why would you encourage it if your xenophilia informs that foreigners are better than Americans, anyway?

Say what you will about former house speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but she was right when saying “People will do what they do.” (No, she wasn’t talking about (im)migration, but it applies.) If you essentially say to foreigners, “Hey, you can come here and enjoy all the goodies, and you can even keep your own culture!” they will. When they then consequently vote as a bloc, politicians will do what they do and pander to them. And when they can finally replace your culture with theirs (supposing the gravy train will keep running regardless), they will.

In a nutshell, when you act like a doormat, you’ll be stepped on — because that’s what doormats are for.