House Democrat Doubles Down on ‘Proud Guatemalan Before I’m an American’ Comments
Ramirez also described America as a country out of the freaking 1500s, accusing it “of prioritizing ‘imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination.'”
Anchor baby Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) lashed out at America and declared her love for a country besides the one that allowed her to grow up and work in Congress.
Of course, Ramirez is doubling down!
Here’s how it started.
Ramirez said, “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.”
Democrat Rep. Delia Ramirez at a summit in Mexico City this weekend tells the audience while speaking in Spanish: "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American." pic.twitter.com/ctJs5QhFLh
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 4, 2025
Ramirez also described America as a country out of the freaking 1500s, accusing it “of prioritizing ‘imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination.'”
Am I…am I reading about the Spanish conquistadors?!
Well, after the backlash, Ramirez feigned shock that people criticized her for…celebrating her Guatemalan roots. From Fox News:
“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. 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,” she asserted.
“No one questions when my white colleagues identify as Irish-American, Italian-American, or Ukrainian-American to honor their ancestry. I’ve consistently expressed pride in my heritage and history – a pride also often reflected in the origin stories of my colleagues. Only those who believe America should not include the children of immigrants or be diverse would attack me – and Americans like me – for honoring my roots,” Ramirez continued.
Ramirez stated that honoring her “Guatemalan ancestry” strengthens her “commitment to America,” adding that she is one of many Americans who represent the “idea of America.”
“We are the living and breathing realization of the idea of America – a place where a multicultural, multiracial democracy can prosper. I am the daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America. I am both Chapina and American. I am from both Guatemala and Chicago, Illinois.
“Anyone who denies our claim on this country simply because we dare to honor our diverse heritage and immigrant roots only exposes how fragile and small-minded their own idea of America really is,” Ramirez concluded.
Yes, Ramirez, let’s call it what it is because it takes a lazy person not to interpret your statement correctly: “I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m an American.”
You consider yourself a Guatemalan first, American second.
To the shock of no one, Ramirez belongs to the “Squad.”
Ramirez’s mom came to America while pregnant with her. Her mom and dad are U.S. citizens, but I cannot find when they became U.S. citizens. The way she speaks about them, I believe, is recent.
Oh, Ramirez’s husband isn’t an American citizen.
Boris Hernandez arrived in America when he was 14. He’s been staying here due to former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
But let’s go back to Ramirez’s mother.
Apparently, Ramirez’s mom risked her own life to reach America and give the child inside her a better life:
According to the story Ramirez grew up hearing, when her mom crossed the Rio Grande, strong currents nearly swept her away. She’d hidden her pregnancy from others on the journey, but in that moment she called out in desperation, “Help! Help! Save me! Save my daughter!” A man did, Ramirez says, but after that day, her mom never saw him again.
As she struggled with depression as a teenager, Ramirez says her mom would frequently invoke this part of her past, saying, “I nearly died so that you could be born. Now I have to fight to keep you alive.”
Your mother literally risked her life to provide you with a better life.
Look, you can disagree with anything going on in America. It’s still the best place to live, including Guatemala.
Again, your mother fled Guatemala for America, meaning America is better than Guatemala.
You can be proud of your heritage. Everyone knows I love my Italian heritage. My great-grandparents came here from southern Italy in the 1920s.
But give me a break. How about you push harder to reform our immigration system?
You know what made me laugh harder? The fact that Ramirez made these comments in Mexico City.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to become a naturalized citizen of Mexico??
Oh, honey. If you don’t qualify under birthright or descent, you are in for a challenge, just like in America. Mexico also requires you to take a language proficiency test and prove knowledge of Mexican culture.
One more thing. Mexico, like America, makes you “provide evidence of integration into society.”
It sounds like Mexico doesn’t have an easy immigration system as well.
And yet these far-leftists go to Mexico and complain about America, even though Mexico has similar laws handling illegal aliens, including an increase in deportations.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I think if you place the importance of a foreign nation over the country whose citizens elected you to power, you should be stripped of your title.
Unfortunately it is all too common in this country for us to be treated like an ATM by foreign nationals. And both sides of the aisle celebrate it.
Which republicans are you talking about? 🤔
The constitution disagrees with you, and rightly so. The voters of her district chose her, and get a chance every two years to change their minds. For as long as they want her to represent them, and the constitution doesn’t disqualify her, what right do we have to “strip her of her title”?
She just professed her fealty to a foreign nation over America.
And? She’s allowed to do that.
Your pedantry is showing again.
The Constitution also gives the House the right to remove her, regardless of what the constituents want.
Only by a 2/3 vote, which means Dems would have to support it. And if she runs again and is reelected, the Congress’s long-standing understanding of the constitution is that they could not expel her again. (By the way the Texas constitution explicitly provides that. But SCOTUS has taken official notice that the US congress has for over a century understood its own expulsion power the same way.)
“We are the living and breathing realization of the idea of America – a place where a multicultural, multiracial democracy can prosper.”
Perhaps part of her problem is that she has an inaccurate understanding of our form of government. She’s welcome to establish such a government, just not here.
Her problem is that she never said that here. She never said anything like that to her constituents. She spoke those words in another country. And she didn’t speak in English, but in Spanish thinking that people in the good ole USA whom she represented would never know.
Her understanding is correct. America was founded to be exactly such a place. Whether she is an appropriate person to hold office in it is up to her constituents. I certainly wouldn’t vote for her, even if she were a Republican, but others may have different ideas.
No, Milhouse, it isn’t. It was built as a place for AMERICANS to in a REPUBLIC to prosper.
If her allegiance (as she claims) is to another country, then America is not for people like her.
The USA was founded as a democratic republic. The vast majority of republics in history were not democratic, and the founders were very clear that this republic was to be a democracy. The idea that the two words are incompatible, and that they chose one over the other, is completely wrong.
And Americans were expected to be multicultural, and to an extent also multiracial. Americans were multicultural from the beginning, and certainly by the time of the 14th amendment they were multiracial.
I want to be outraged. But, honestly, this is just another freak in the circus sideshow that is Congress.
I AM outraged.
Outraged that she has not yet been censured and/or removed from office.
She can’t be removed without two thirds of the house voting to do it, and there’s no chance that her fellow Democrats would vote that way.
(And while there’s nothing in the text of the constitution to say so, Congress has for more than a century held a strong opinion that it has no power to expel a member for an offense committed before the most recent election. That interpretation has been so strongly held that the Supreme Court has taken official note of it, while carefully not expressing an opinion on it. So even if this were just grounds for expelling her now, if she’s re-elected in 2026 it won’t be.)
Thus is what happens when you let too many minorities into governmental roles.
Has nothing to do with being a minority, and everything to do with hating America, yet taking an oath to support it. (E.g., false witness.)
She has clearly stated that her allegiance to Guatemala supersedes her allegiance to the USA.
That is a clear violation of her oath of office.
She should be censured and expelled.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Well, if nothing else, it should affect her security clearance.
Please refer to 8 U.S.C. §1481(a)(2).
Sorry, but what does anyone expect from an Illinois Socialist? Hopefully, her constituents will be reminded of this, often, during the upcoming election cycle.
Illinois anchor baby. Another reason why children of illegals shouldn’t be citizens.
Read it again (assuming you read it the first time).
“A person […] shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” She had no such intention, and therefore keeps her nationality.
It is a firmly established principle, that is not even slightly in dispute, that US nationality, once legitimately obtained, cannot be lost involuntarily. An earlier version of 8 USC 1481 that purported to strip nationality merely for the acts listed was unconstitutional and was duly struck down. That’s why Congress amended it to add that saving clause, making it apply only to voluntary renunciation.
Assuming your intent was not just to be insulting, I did read it the first time. She’s the one who proclaimed herself to be a “proud Guatemalan”. How can anyone state unequivocally and on her behalf that it was not her intention to claim derivative Guatemalan citizenship?
And, yes, I understand that a native born citizen cannot simply be stripped of their citizenship, and naturalized citizens can only be stripped of citizenship in extreme cases of fraudulent naturalization.
If you read it the first time, how could you assert that claiming Guatemalan nationality could lose her her US citizenship? If you read it the first time, how did you miss the key requirement that it must be done with the intent of renouncing US citizenship, which she clearly did not have?
There is no difference in this respect between native and naturalized. In both cases a valid citizenship cannot be revoked, and an invalid one doesn’t need revoking.
Just recently we had a case of a native-born woman who had considered herself a US citizen all her life, and had been so considered by the US government, and then it turned out that she was never a citizen because when she was born her family was not subject to US jurisdiction. It went through the courts, but the decision was that she had never been a citizen, and therefore the US didn’t have to continue treating her as one. Exactly the same as Rasmea Odeh, John Demjanjuk, and all the other fake citizens who were exposed. This proves that birth and naturalization are treated the same way, as the 14th amendment says they must be.
Which, with a very pedantic reading of her statement, she did.
This is the point you keep missing with your responses.
No, she absolutely did not intend to renounce her US citizenship, and you know it. And that intent is the key.
Remove anyone that doesn’t do America’s business first.
Her mother, I’m sure, is proud of the fact that what she sacrificed to come to America is now rejected by the very thing she made the journey for….
And no, as an Irish American I am never Irish before I am American…
Still, it’s the AOC-Crocket-Mandami leftists
I agree. I’m glad The Great Famine caused my people to leave Ireland in 1852.
Personally, I don’t care for the hyphenated American monikers. But that’s best the point because this clown made no such comment. She considers herself to be a Guatemalan first. No hyphens that I can see. And Guatemala actually has its own elected legislative body. As a proud Guatemalan, has she ever even voted for it. Has she ever even been to Guatemala?
To be honest, being American is at the bottom of the list of things that most Democrats identify with.
Subotai Bahadur
Summary by Paula:
Delia Ramirez: I say one thing in English, which is my second language, to people in the state where I’m running for election. But after I’m elected, I say something different in another country when speaking to people in my native language.
Reminds me of Yassar Arafat in that regard.
She was born and raised in America. Typically the children of immigrants who grow up in America, regardless of what their parents speak, end up with English as their native language, and their parents’ language(s) as their second/third languages. Certainly their accents almost always resemble those of their peers and not of their parents.
A person’s native language is the first language they learned which was spoken at home before they ever had any peers. Being born and raised in America does not change that. By the way, she speaks Spanish flawlessly without an accent because is it her native language.
What a stupid bitch and what stupid voters.
The obvious question is if she thinks this country is so bad why doesn’t she just go back to her beloved Guatemala. Seriously why is she still here?
Of the two, who is stupidest?
Voters for sure.
She’s Dumb. Voters are Dumber.
Agreed. Voters always get what they deserve. It’s the rest of us that don’t.
I just bought a line of Guatemalan Worry Dolls, took them in the back yard and pissed on them out of spite.
Who is worried about a bunch of 4’9″ pygmies anyway?
Go worship a sun God or a raven, you twit!
Worship a raven? Never more!
ISWYDT!!!!!/5
Once upon a midnight dreary deary.
:)!!!
keep talking communists! keep talking!!!
Another Democrat speaks out. Pretty soon all elected Democrats will be required to be honest as a litmus test.
I have always felt anger at any immigrant that waves their old country’s flag on certain days here in America or displays it on their car etc. I can understand nostalgia but by waveing their flag in our country, it is like the middle finger to America. When you become a citizen you, like a marriage, forsake all others. For her to say this when she was BORN here is not only disgusting but disloyal to the cfountry that has protected her and allowed her to be whatever she wanted to be. I’ve been to Guatemala many times and remember soilders with submachine guns on every street corner. I remember how the indians there were treated. There is extreme poverty. It is no heaven.
She’s also, apparently, married to an illegal alien.
I say deport her husband immediately, and see if the Guatemalan cunt stays here in the US, or “Stands By Her Man!”
My guess. She chooses the US.
Perhaps we would all be better off if her mother did wash downstream.
Democrats eh 🙄 Yet another one of the many democrats who just don’t get it 🤷♂️
Guatemalan go home!
America out of the 1500s as in conquistadors? If true she would be raped repeatedly.
Enough of these ungrateful so called “citizens”
Time to make her Guatemalan . Again
She should be censured and thrown out of Office. She’s not even a Guat – she was born in the USA, so to me that makes her a TRAITOR! Put a hurt on her.
How about simply state that she has renounced her allegiance to the US?
Because she hasn’t. You can state anything you like, but it won’t be true, and it will have no legal effect. The law is clear that even taking a formal oath of allegiance to a foreign country, which she did not do, can’t result in loss of US citizenship unless it was done with the intent of renouncing it.
And. taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign nation – not under compulsion – IS and act of renouncing your American citizenship.
I don’t really care what a bunch of Progressives have said (the ones who think dual citizenship is okey-dokey because they’re ultimately globalists). I’m not arguing how they have made law, I’m arguing what is clearly RIGHT and TRUE. NO ONE should be allowed dual citizenship, and ANYONE who pronounces something like this in a public forum and clearly not under duress should be immediately taken before a court to be stripped of their citizenship.
If they want to declare they were wrong to say such a thing, then fine. Let’s have that done in a legal proceeding (which will be published everywhere). But it should not be allowed to stand. (And I would still throw her out of Congress for a clear violation of her oath of office.)
There is no requirement for ‘Magic Words’ to be expressed to satisfy ‘intent’ which can and is proven every day in Courts across the Nation by inference, context and totality of circumstances in the absence of a confession.
No, it is not. The courts have been very clear about that. Without the intent to renounce US citizenship you can swear allegiance to twenty different countries and your US citizenship remains inviolable. The constitution requires this, so Congress can’t make a law that says otherwise.
That’s why 8 USC 1841 specifies: “A person […] shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” Performing the exact same acts without that intention has no effect on ones citizenship.
And dual citizenship IS legal, and has been since the very beginning of our republic. There is nothing the USA can do to prevent it. Dual citizenship is something every country in the world must deal with, because it’s a fact of life.
No, Chief, there are no magic words. Intent can indeed be inferred, and courts routinely know how to do that. But the intent must be there. You can’t just assert it. It must actually exist, and you must be able to prove it. In this case not only can’t you prove it, but all the evidence proves the exact opposite. It is crystal clear that she had no intent to renounce her citizenship, and that is what any honest court in the world would correctly infer from the evidence. You yourself know that she had no such intent. So asserting that she did is dishonest.
Her statement is also interesting for what she did not say:
“I’m a proud Guatemalan before I’m a proud American.”
She is proud to be Guatemalan, and not proud to be American? This is what her statement implies. Then why stay here? Why not go to Guatemala and be “a proud Guatemalan” there? Unless, of course, she remains here to make this country more like Guatemala so that she can be proud of it.
people criticized her for…celebrating her Guatemalan roots
People criticized her not for her roots but for her current allegiance.
She should be hounded out of Congress. And would be if our legislature were still American, instead of globalist Progs.
“the daughter of undocumented immigrants[4] from Guatemala”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delia_Ramirez
Early life and education
The daughter of undocumented immigrants[4] from Guatemala, Ramirez was raised in Chicago’s Humboldt Park neighborhood.[5] She graduated from Sabin Magnet Elementary School and earned a Bachelor of Arts in justice studies from Northeastern Illinois University.[2][5][6][7]
OMG.
Justice “Studies.”
in other words
how to tie up rulings in a court setting
since manyyy ,,too many blue cities are looking like 3rd world countries….
More recently a large Mexican community has moved to the district, notably in Berwyn, Cicero, Hodgkins and Summit where they represent over 30% of the population, and along Archer Avenue, a major Chicago artery that runs through the district’s northern section.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_3rd_congressional_district#Demographics
wonder if anyone there CHECKS THE VALIDITY OF THE VOTERS CITIZENSHIP??? or is it even required in that region??
IMO good policy would be for these folks to refused seating by the Congress. By all means proclaim whatever allegiances you wish either implicitly or explicitly but don’t whine if there’s a consequence as a result.
That is not possible. The only grounds on which a house can refuse to seat someone claiming to be a member is that it believes the person was not duly elected. If there is no question that she has been duly elected then Congress has no power not to seat her.
Sure it is. The HoR can run their chamber how they wish. She could try and file a lawsuit but then that would be putting the Judiciary into conflict with a co equal branch. You keep insisting upon conflating ‘should not’ with ‘can not’. Simple example A should not punch B in the nose for no reason …but he can. There may be judicial involvement in a court room long after the event but that doesn’t prevent the act.
No, the HOR cannot run their chamber how they wish. If she is reelected in 2026, and there is no doubt about the validity of that result, but the incoming House in 2027 votes not to seat her anyway, the courts can and will ORDER the House to seat her. Not after the event, but immediately. The House has no choice but to seat her, because she is entitled to the seat by right of election, and it makes absolutely no difference what her colleagues think of it.
It’s not even like punching someone, which is a criminal act that you are nonetheless physically capable of performing. Not seating her, in the absence of a dispute over the validity of her election, is something the House literally cannot do. She will be a member of the House. That will be a fact, that the House can’t change. And the courts will uphold that fact. She will be entitled to a salary, and to an office, and to vote on legislation, even if it takes armed US marshals to enforce that entitlement. Just as it would if the House were to refuse to seat someone because of their race.
Then why is she serving in the US Congress instead of the Congreso de la República?
Because she was elected to the US Congress and not to that other body.
Judging by her statement it seems odd that she did not run for that other body (as you put it).
Wait! Maybe it was a mistake! Maybe she intended to run for that other body and accidentally registered for the wrong election in the wrong country. Could happen to anyone.
Nope. US congressman is a much better job than member of that other body. It pays more, it’s more powerful, it’s more respectable, why would she want that other job instead?
Just another utterly vile, subversive and self-serving Dhimmi-crat ingrate/demagogue/hustler.
Send her home.
she might be married to her brother
I submit that by publicly expressing fealty to another country, Ramirez has effectively renounced her American citizenship.
No, she hasn’t. There is no such thing as “effectively”; renunciation can only be conscious and voluntary. She gave no evidence of any such intent, and she continues to exercise her citizenship, thus showing that she did not intend to renounce it.
Yes, actually she did.
Except for the idiocy of being allowed to have it both ways.
No, she didn’t. You know that. Your pretense not to know it is dishonest. She declared herself Guatemalan. She did not declare herself no longer American. Those are not the same. Intent to renounce is the crucial requirement, and no honest person could assert that she had that intent.
This creature must be removed from Congress. This country cannot allow this traitor to be involved at all in legislating our laws. She should be deported to her favorite country
Delia Catalina Ramirez does not qualify as a US citizen by birth. Her mother was (is?) an illegal alien. Legal immigrants don’t wade across the Rio Grande. Mere birth on US soil is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for citizenship. She fails the important clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which does not refer to criminal jurisdiction, but to allegiance. We have the Congressional Record where the amendment was debated. The purpose of the amendment was to give citizenship to the newly freed slaves at the time who would otherwise remain stateless, not to anyone who drops a baby on US soil. The intent of those who drafted the amendment becomes clear from the record.
SCOTUS has yet to rule on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” No United States v. Wong Kim Ark is not controlling because both parents were legal residents. Warning: do not rely on AI to give you a valid legal opinion. For example, I queried “14a on citizenship” using the Brave browser, The AI bot the Browser uses gave an incomplete and misleading response by omission. Specifically: “This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen.” Yes the parents were non-citizens but they were legal residents. As Ramirez’s mother was not a legal resident, Wong Kim Ark does not apply to her,
Ramirez qualifies as a citizen of Guatemala, not the US. The State Department should rescind her passport as they did to Snowden (an actual US citizen), baring her reentry to the US.
Ramirez, by her own words, removed all doubt as her allegiance, and therefore her citizenship.
That is utter dishonest bullshit, and no matter how many times you repeat it it remains dishonest bullshit. You don’t honestly believe it yourself.
There is no question or dispute about the meaning of “jurisdiction”. And yes, we do have the debates, which show clearly how the senators who first endorsed it understood it. Its sponsors, Senators Trumbull and Howard, both expressly said that this clause was intended to exclude only those who were born immune from US law, for instance because of diplomatic immunity.
Howard said “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons“.
Proponents of the view you are presenting often dishonestly misquote Howard, by inserting a spurious “or” before “who belong”. Doing so brands them as deliberate liars, not to be trusted on any matter whatsoever. It’s exactly like the “not” that Kevin Clinesmith deliberately introduced into his FISA application for Carter Page.
It also shows them to be playing their audience for fools, because the sentence would make no sense with the “or” in it. “Or” would imply that foreign ambassadors are not themselves “foreigners, aliens”! But they obviously are. Therefore it’s impossible to read an “or” into the sentence.
The amendment’s opponents, including President Johnson, also showed they understood it the same way, since they objected to the fact that the children of Chinese and of Gypsies would be included. Clearly they understood such people to be fully under US jurisdiction.
Even the children of foreign tourists were explicitly included, with the sole exception of those born on foreign naval ships that happened to be in US waters, since such ships are considered foreign territory. Note that children born on foreign civilian ships transiting US waters were included.
(Not that the senators’ understanding is definitive, since they are not the ones who made it part of the constitution; that was the state legislatures. And even their understanding, if we could divine it, would not be definitive, since laws are to be interpreted by their public meaning, not the thoughts of the people who enacted them. But in this case that’s irrelevant, since the senators’ understanding was undoubtedly the same as how everyone else understood it too.)
The fact that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both here legally is irrelevant; the court’s reasoning explicitly says the only exceptions are those whose parents are immune to US law, and it says that other than “Indians not taxed” there are only three such categories: Children born to foreign ambassadors, children born to foreign invading troops, and children born on foreign naval vessels.