DO YOU SUPPORT REMOVING FOREIGN-BORN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?
This question isn’t just provocative—it cuts to the heart of what democracy, citizenship, and representation truly mean. The United States was founded and built by immigrants, and the Constitution sets clear, legal requirements for serving in Congress. Notably, it does not require members to be native-born—only that they are U.S. citizens and meet age and residency standards.
Calls to remove foreign-born lawmakers raise serious concerns about fairness, equality, and constitutional principles. Should someone’s place of birth outweigh their commitment to public service, their loyalty to the country, or the will of the voters who elected them? In a democracy, elections—not ancestry—are meant to determine leadership.
This debate also invites a broader conversation about inclusion and identity. Millions of Americans are naturalized citizens who contribute to society, serve in the military, pay taxes, and participate fully in civic life. Excluding them from leadership based on birthplace risks undermining the very ideals of representation and opportunity that define the nation.
Before taking a position, it’s worth asking: Are we strengthening democracy by narrowing who can serve—or weakening it by placing limits rooted in fear rather than law? The future of representative government depends on how we answer that question.
