“As the first Mexican-born American Congresswoman, I thought the Hispanic Caucus would be open in working together,” Flores said Wednesday. “This denial once again proves a bias towards conservative Latinas that don’t fit their narrative or ideology.”
…
The caucus is composed entirely of Democrats, and its bylaws explicitly prohibit Republicans from membership.
Chris Enloe
Octotober 27, 2022
First Mexican-born congresswoman denied membership in Hispanic caucus because she is a Republican
[Someone has a problem with diversity.—Joe]
First of all, why on earth do we allow a foreign-born person to represent US citizens in our government? (For that matter, why do we allow dual-citizenship people to do that?) That’s a sure sign of a conquered or demoralized country. And secondly, why is she surprised? Of COURSE the left applies an ideological filter to everything; you can’t be “authentically” black or latino or Asian or whatever if you are not liberal / commie, you are a sell-out or race-traitor.
No offense, Rolf, but if a person chooses to be American, what gives you the right to question their dedication to American values? There are plenty of natural-born Americans who positively loathe this country and their birthright. Do you really want to give them preference to hold positions of power by virtue of luck of birth rather than commitment to the ideals of the United States?
I’m a dual-citizen. I don’t think there are many people who have met me in person who would question my devotion to the United States. I choose to become an American. I didn’t have to do it. That ought to say something about the character of any dual-citizen. Also understand for many duals they cannot shed that other citizenship even if they wanted to. What matters to me how you live and the virtues you defend. That is what makes you American.
Unlike a person born here, I had to educate myself, prove myself and raise my hand and swear an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I wonder how many Americans born here even know what that Oath and commitment to the nation is if they haven’t served in uniform?
The fact that you have to identify yourself by your race says everything one need to know. Your a racist.
Just as all the communists in the latinx…..whatever.
Either your here to serve the people of this country under the constitution. Or your the problem.
And why would anyone go to DC with the idea of being able to “work”, with communists in the first place?
Sounds like Chris is somewhat confused as to the nature of the problems in this country. Which is what one would expect from a foreigner.
Rolf is spot on. He should be having a hard time voting here. Let alone be in congress.
Representative Flores is taking a page right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: make the other side live up to their own rules.
Showing up all bright-eyed and innocent looking to join the Hispanic Caucus or the Black Caucus and being told NO because you’re the wrong kind of Hispanic or Black torpedoes those caucus’s assumption of moral authority.
Representative Flores and Representative Donalds will just have to go join the Congressional Content-of-Character Caucus At Large, because who doesn’t want to be in the Big CCoCC club?
Yes, I was a tad harsh in my comment about Mr. Enloe. And making someone live up to their own rules is a good thing. But for who?
The only rules for communists are to win. And the only sin is to lose. They have no sense of hypocrisy.
Is there anyone that doesn’t know that already? Can one honestly have a caucus for a certain race and not be a racist?
Why not just go about the business of destroying communists and if ever asked why you didn’t try to join the Lantinx caucus tell them that you are a congressman for everyone in your district and a caucus based on race is…..racist?
We have to stop buying into the left’s buzz words and games. There is no “gun violence”, Only assholes committing violence with guns.
There is no such thing as “Fossil fuel”. There are only hydrocarbons that are found in the same rock as fossils.
We as a people need to start digging down hard on the communists or our children aren’t going to make it.
If your in congress? Quit campaigning and go kick some ass!
“I thought the Hispanic Caucus would be open in working together,”
It’s weird that you’d think that. In fact it’s quite difficult to believe, frankly, as it points to an incredible level of naïveté. Maybe I can give you a pass, based on the possibility that, not having been raised in the U.S., or having paid attention to U.S. politics for the last 100 years, maybe you didn’t realize that virtually all of these victimology/tribalistic groups are leftist controlled (i.e. Jesuitical in nature), and that their functions really don’t have anything to do with their names or their publicly stated missions or goals.
Rush Limbaugh was on to this a couple of decades ago when he began widely broadcasting the title, “NAALCP” (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal [or Leftist] Colored Persons), to correct the official, public name of the NAACP. He used that term, NAALCP, ever since, for years and years. Where’ve you been? And it’s not as if this phenomenon (of presumptively good causes being hijacked and owned by leftist [Romish] interests) was difficult to identify as early as the 1930s, or even earlier.
Perhaps you were being coy in stating that you thought they’d be open to working with you, but that would be a bad play. It makes you look blind to the world.
“First of all, why on earth do we allow a foreign-born person to represent US citizens in our government?”
Well, when we kicked off this whole U.S. of A thing almost 250 years ago there were a lot of “foreign-born people” representing Americans, to the extent that it was necessary to menton it in the Constitution:
Article II, Section I
“No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adpotion of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;”
And, as to Members of the House of Representatives:
Article I, Section 2
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of Twenty five Years, and been seven years a Citizen of the United States,….”
And, before someone asks:
Article 1, Section 3
“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years and been nine years a Citizen of the United States….”
So there is Constitutional accommodation for having been born “somewhere else” for Reps and Sens. It can be argued that way back in the beginning such accommodation was necessary because before July 2, 1776 (that was the date the signing of the Declaration was complete, the acceptance by the Continental Congress and official announcement, and the subsequent celebrations, occurred
on the 4th) there was no such thing as “The United States of America” as stipulated in the heading of the declaration: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united states of America.” (and, yes, in the original Declaration “united states” was not capitalized, and, interestingly, one could say ‘the united states….” did not exist in name or writing prior to shortly after June 7, 1776, which was the date on which the Continental Congress instructed members Jefferson, Adams, Sherman, Franklin and Livingston to draft a document declaring independence).
The several states, of course, depending on the specifications of their particular constitutions, may elect anyone from Rhodes Scholars to potted plants to their legislatures if they so choose.
The point is that, at least at the federal Congressional level, as long as one is a Citizen of the United States and achieved the necessary age(s), one may be elected to either House and serve regardless of place of birth. For offices above that, however, the rules do change.
As to whether someone born elsewhere is sufficiently well versed with and sufficiently assimilated in American culture to perform adequately in federal elected office, that’s best dealt with at the individual level; all of us can come up with multiple lists of native-born Americans we would neither trust nor want near any position of responsibility higher than street sweeper.
I would also like to mention at the time we were kicking this whole thing off some 250 years ago.
Having some of the same attitudes we see in congress today- doing some of the acts we see, would have gotten you ran through with a sword on the spot.
Foreigner or no, they wouldn’t have put up with what we tolerate today.
Our forefathers never figured us to be the pussies we are either.