Shouldn't members of Congress love America first? Not if you're a Democrat.
Like most Americans, my ancestors immigrated to the United States to make a better life for themselves and their future families. Six out of eight of my great-grandparents came from Norway. I grew up very aware of that heritage, with some Norwegian traditions passed down through the generations.
Yet, neither my parents – nor my grandparents, who were first-generation Americans – have ever referred to themselves as Norwegian Americans. They are Americans. And they're proud of it.
This country really is a melting pot of immigrants from all over the world, and that's part of what makes America unlike any other on earth. The mutual understanding that America is a land of opportunity and that it's an honor to call it home is what binds citizens together, even if our ancestors came from diverse parts of the globe.
Of all Americans, you'd think members of Congress would be the first to embrace utmost allegiance to their country. For some Democrats, that's not the case.
'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American,' Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said in Spanish to a conference last weekend of leftist leaders in Mexico City.
It's a jarring statement coming from one of our nation's lawmakers.
Opinion: Are you hot, fit and tan? Get ready for liberals to label you a MAGA fanatic.
Congress members take an oath to our country. Do they mean it?
Ramirez wasn't the only U.S. progressive in attendance at the second annual Panamerican Congress. She was joined by several other 'Squad' members, progressive House lawmakers, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. The event was organized in part by the leader of Progressive International, a "radical left-wing group," according to Fox News.
At the Progressive International's inaugural summit in 2020, its leaders declared that "capitalism is the virus": "We aspire to eradicate capitalism everywhere. We believe that exploitation, dispossession, and environmental destruction are written into the genetic code of capitalism. We do not support efforts to save this system, nor enable its expansion to all corners of the earth."
It makes one wonder what members of the U.S. Congress were doing there in the first place, but I digress.
Ramirez isn't the only congresswoman to make her disdain toward our country known. Omar, who escaped war-torn Somalia as a child to come to the United States, claimed in June that America was being turned into 'one of the worst countries' – presumably because she disagrees with President Donald Trump.
Unlike Omar, Ramirez was born a U.S. citizen after her Guatemalan mother crossed into the country while she was pregnant with Ramirez.
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.
Opinion: News media should report what's happening in Gaza, not run Hamas propaganda
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.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Should Ramirez be 'deported'? She should at least apologize.
Once Ramirez's anti-American comments hit social media, the pushback was swift.
The White House called her words 'despicable.' Republican Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tennessee, wrote: 'Denaturalize, deport, and kick her off Homeland Committee. We know where her allegiances lie.' The Homeland Security X account also questioned her allegiance.
Similar sentiments were echoed across the conservative media ecosystem.
Opinion: Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad triggers liberals. She looks good. They don't.
The House member, for her part, has responded with defensiveness.
'Let's call it what it is: today's attacks are a weak attempt to silence my dissent and invalidate my patriotic criticism of the nativist, white supremacist, authoritarians in government,' Ramirez said in a statement. 'It is the definition of hypocrisy that members of Congress − who betray their oath each day they enable Trump − are attacking me for celebrating my Guatemalan-American roots.'
Ramirez didn't just celebrate her roots, however. Before world leaders, she elevated the country where her parents fled above her own.
She's an American and a member of Congress. There's no defense for what she said. Ramirez owes her constituents – and the rest of us – an apology.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hey, Democrats — want to keep losing? Then keep sidelining Jasmine Crockett.
If Democrats want to keep losing elections by chasing elusive, outdated ideals of 'moderate' legislation, then they should continue sidelining rising stars like Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Crockett is a fresh voice representing millions of Americans who demand something new from their elected leaders. A recent Atlantic article revealed that some party elders view Crockett as 'undisciplined.' On the surface, it sounds like standard political advice. But in context, it exposes the respectability politics at play and evinces a deep disconnect from the cultural, media, and generational shifts that have defined the last decade. President Trump has understood these shifts and weaponized them to great success. We in the Biden administration seemed not to understand them — or worse, we just resented them. The Democratic Party needs a change of mindset. Its legacy leaders must either evolve or step aside. The youth aren't with them. Black men are moving to conservative parties. Our cities are slipping away, and the old coalition is breaking. So why is there so much pressure on Crockett to be polished? Mark Zuckerberg is in his 40s, rebranding himself with boxy T-shirts, jiu-jitsu medals, and hip-hop styled gold chains. Sam Altman, just 39, is leading the AI revolution and reshaping global power structures. Across industries, young leaders are not just present—they're shaping the future. Crockett, age 44 and a civil rights attorney, is sharp, media-savvy, and unafraid to speak plainly. She represents the cultural zeitgeist just as much as these men. Yet she is marginalized in her own party, passed over for leadership roles, and left vulnerable to attacks from opponents without the full-throated support of her colleagues. It's telling — especially in a party where the average age of leadership continues to climb into the 80s. Multiple members, including Crockett's predecessor Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), have died in office without effectively grooming successors. Why would Democrats sideline Crockett, clinging to appeals to 'moderates,' while the opposition isn't concerned with moderation at all? Republicans aren't running on moderation, they're running on winning majorities. These questions desperately need answers. Democrats must also grapple with their brand of respectability politics — where they speak truth to power in public, but reserve criticism for people in their own circles whom they deem unfit or unworthy behind closed doors. These whispers happen in places like Martha's Vineyard and elite social gatherings. Beaches and luxuries their constituents will probably never see or ever care enough to go to. It's happening to Crockett now. For those raised in the Black church, this is familiar: pastors refusing to step down, never mentoring the next generation, and leaving pulpits and communities in disarray. Crockett's situation is not unique, but it is urgent. She doesn't need to be controlled — she needs to be counseled, empowered, and amplified. Because Crockett is not an outlier or an agitator. She is the base. She is the moment. She speaks for working-class women juggling child care, school pickup, and $16-an-hour jobs with no benefits, driving uber on the weekend. She speaks for young Black men launching LLCs, tired of performative progressivism and poverty politics. She understands the frustration of a generation that grew up quoting Jay-Z and saw Trump glamorized in hip-hop lyrics long before he entered politics. She screams for them so they can keep going to work and getting their checks with some measure of hope and pride, knowing someone is fighting for them and isn't afraid. Whether you like her delivery or not, she's speaking a language people understand — and that's exactly what the party needs. Look at Bishop T.D. Jakes. Last month, he shocked many by announcing his retirement and installing his daughter, Pastor Sarah Jakes Roberts, as his successor. Sarah — a one-time teen mom whose sermons now go viral weekly — has become a spiritual voice for a new generation. By passing the torch while still alive, Bishop Jakes showed a rare understanding: Leadership is legacy, not ego. The Democratic Party should take note. Crockett doesn't need to be molded into an old-school moderate. She needs mentorship, media support, and the mic. If the party doesn't embrace her — and the millions like her — they'll keep losing. Not just elections, but the future.
Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
Redistricting spat between Texas Republicans and Democrats stalls other bills
Gov. Greg Abbott's special session is underway in the Texas Legislature but with only one functioning chamber. The state House has not been able to meet this month while dozens of Democrats try to stall Republicans' efforts to reconfigure the state's congressional districts. Why it matters: The ongoing standoff between the state's Republicans and Democrats over redistricting could delay deliberations of other legislation, including property tax reform, stronger THC regulations and more abortion-related restrictions. The big picture: Republicans are targeting five Democrat-controlled districts in Texas, including U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson's seat in Dallas. The latest: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the Texas Supreme Court to declare 13 state House seats vacant to reprimand Democrats who left the state to delay a redistricting vote. The state constitution "strikes a careful balance between the right of a legislative minority to resist legislation and the prerogative of the majority to conduct business," Paxton's petition says. Paxton is also investigating who is funding the " runaway Democrats" and pushing for authorities in Democrat-controlled California and Illinois to arrest the lawmakers. Zoom in: Four of the Texas House members targeted in Paxton's Supreme Court petition represent North Texas districts — Jessica González and Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos from Dallas County, Chris Turner from Tarrant County and Mihaela Plesa from Collin County. The Democrats have said that they don't plan to back down.
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Social Security at 90: Where the program stands and how to fix it
Social Security is a vital source of income for millions of Americans, but after 90 years, the program faces significant financial challenges that could reshape it for future generations. If Congress fails to act, retirees could see their monthly checks cut by 23 percent in less than a decade — slashing thousands of dollars from the average person's annual benefits. Lawmakers are unlikely to let that happen, but so far, they've opted to kick the can down the road, avoiding politically unpopular solutions and complicating eventual fixes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed Social Security into law on Aug. 14, 1935, as a way to give 'some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.' Here's what to know about the state of the program 90 years later: How many people receive Social Security? Nearly 70 million people received Social Security benefits in July, with the average check totaling $1,863. Retired workers made up the largest share — roughly three-quarters, or about 53 million. The program also supports other groups: Nearly six million people received survivor benefits last month, while more than eight million collected disability insurance. Most people aged 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security, making it a vital lifeline for millions of adults — and children — who would otherwise fall below the poverty line. Without Social Security benefits, 37 percent of older adults would have had incomes below the official poverty line in 2023 — instead, only 10 percent did, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. More Americans now expect to rely on Social Security than in the past. In a recent Gallup poll, 37 percent of non-retirees said it will be a 'major source' of income in retirement — up from 28 percent two decades ago. When Social Security benefits could be cut Social Security isn't going away, but in less than a decade, millions of Americans could see their monthly retirement checks shrink if Congress doesn't intervene. The program's retirement trust fund is expected to run out by 2033, at which point Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. For today's average retired worker, that would mean a cut of about $460 a month — more than $5,500 a year. That said, experts caution against claiming Social Security benefits early out of fear that the program may not be around in the future, as doing so results in permanently lower monthly checks. Federal lawmakers are expected to act before the cuts take effect, but the main concern is that the longer they wait, the more complicated the fix will become. Social Security is so widely supported that, until now, politicians have largely avoided moves that could prove unpopular with voters. The last major overhaul came roughly 40 years ago when the federal government gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67. When that happened in 1983, Social Security insolvency was just months away. Why Social Security is facing a financial shortfall The program's financial shortfall largely stems from the nation's changing demographics, which have resulted in fewer workers supporting more retirees. In 2010, there were 43 million people age 65 and older, and by 2024, that number had grown to 59 million, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. At the same time, the number of workers contributing to the program has fallen — from 2.9 covered workers per beneficiary in 2010 to 2.7 in 2024 — a ratio projected to decline further to 2.3 by 2044, the foundation said. That imbalance is a concern because Social Security is primarily funded through a payroll tax, which accounts for about 90 percent of the trust fund's income. Fewer workers mean less payroll tax revenue. The good news is that the demographic shift isn't a surprise, giving policymakers time to prepare. The bad news is that it's not easily reversed, and major policy changes may be needed to shore up the program for generations to come. Something else to keep in mind: Despite raising the income cap over time, a smaller share of wages is now subject to the payroll tax compared to the '80s and '90s. The portion of wages and salaries covered by the payroll tax has fallen to about 82 percent, down from 90 percent in 1983, according to the Tax Foundation. Part of that is due to a rise in employer-provided benefits, like health insurance, which is tax-deductible, and thus faces neither the income nor payroll tax, the Tax Foundation said. What can be done to fix Social Security? Lawmakers have a few options: increase Social Security revenue, reduce costs or, most likely, some combination of both. Democrats want to raise more money by making high earners pay Social Security taxes on income above the current cap. For 2025, the tax only applies to the first $176,100, so any earnings above that aren't taxed. Gradually increasing the payroll tax rate is another way to raise revenue. Right now, the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent total — split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each. The combined rate has been steady since 1990. While raising taxes is rarely popular, polling suggests boosting revenue is generally more acceptable to the public than cutting benefits. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that wide majorities of both Republicans (77%) and Democrats (83%) do not support Social Security benefit reductions. President Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits and even suggested eliminating federal income taxes on retirement checks — though that move would worsen the program's financial shortfall. Like his predecessors before him, Trump has offered little concrete policy direction for fixing Social Security. Tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to root out widespread waste, fraud and abuse fell short of expectations and sparked significant confusion. Earlier this year, Brookings released a bipartisan blueprint for fixing Social Security. The proposal included tax-based revenue boosts like increasing the maximum taxable ceiling and raising the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 12.6 percent. It also suggested benefit reductions, like increasing the retirement age for high earners, among other changes.
