Posted on 08/05/2025 9:46:41 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A Texas Democrat’s sudden departure overseas ‘for the foreseeable future’ raises important questions about immigration, assimilation, and American identity.
If you’re an immigrant who came to the United States as an adult, but you leave America for an indefinite absence to attend to a family emergency in your country of origin, in what sense are you really an American? Is America actually your home, or is home your country of origin?
Let’s say you also happen to be a representative in your adopted state’s legislature. Are you really able to serve your constituents and your district by going overseas indefinitely? If family obligations require that of you, then what business do you really have representing the people who live in your district?
These are important questions that get at the heart of our ongoing national debate over immigration, assimilation, and what it really means to be an American. And as it happens, they aren’t hypothetical questions. A Texas Democrat, state Rep. Salman Bhojani, issued a statement on Sunday that he had left the country “for the foreseeable future” because of a family medical emergency overseas.
We don’t know the nature of Bhojani’s family medical emergency, and I wish him and his family well as far as that goes. But the Pakistani-born lawmaker’s sudden and indefinite departure suggests that he has not really made the United States his home and calls into question whether someone in his position should be serving in the state legislature.
Simply put, if you have to drop everything and go back to your country of origin to attend to a family emergency “for the foreseeable future,” then maybe your home is really over there, where you came from and where your family still is — along with family obligations. What’s more, it suggests that you...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
“”””but you leave America for an indefinite absence to attend to a family emergency in your country of origin””””
Bad example, some family emergencies would require you stay for years, we have people on this forum that might have had to change their lives and residence to deal with a situation.
Interesting but it matters not in immediacy. If one leaves any job for an indeterminate time period, they are fired because the job must still get done. If the departure were for a few weeks ( e.g. illness), accommodation could be made. A few months? Then replacement with possible return is mandated (e.g. maternity leave) ..... But for an unknown length of time? Termination is required as no job can function under such uncertainty.
If he is a naturalized citizen then unless he commits a horrendous crime, he can come an go as he pleases, I would think.
if a permanent resident the same would apply.
If he is in any other category, has no business being in the legislature, or Congress.
One of the rights and privileges of US citizenship is the right to leave the country whenever and for as long as one wants without the risk of losing that citizenship. No one gets to second-guess that, just because a person might have been naturalized.
I would say that based on this scenario he retains his US citizenship. But unless he plans to return immediately he should resign. And if he doesn’t resign he should be removed from office.
Did they hold elective office from foreign territory?
I was speaking in general to what sounded like a general statement, but clarify your question so that I will know what you are asking, are you saying someone who holds government office in their homeland at the same time they are living here?
Pull the rug out from under him? Come on.
when did NOT assimilating become an option?
There are benefits to/for citizenship - Can’t we enforce some responsibilities?
“Maybe” ; “suggests” ; “might”
All weasel words. It’s clear that this person’s credentials to say he’s “representative” of the people in his district are almost non-existent. He makes LAWS that they and we are supposed to live under, and for himself. If he lives outside the State and the United States, in what way is he qualified to mandate anything for the citizenry?
This was the central issue of the Revolution, if y’all recall. Englishmen on this continent didn’t want to be stripped of their rights and ruled by people thousands of miles away who had virtually nothing to do with their lives here. And those were people who had the same genetics, the same shared history, the same religious and political beliefs and of course had generations of relatives and families in the “old country”.
And yet we still rebelled.
The idea that some genetic, cultural, religious and political alien can casually move here, go through the motions of gaining citizenship (were his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the oath?) and THEN run for office spouting a few salespoint platitudes shows that he violates every canon of the idea of America: he’s not representative, he isn’t really part of the body politic, and he’s merely a foreign pretender and usurper looking to exploit a weak system for his own personal power and enrichment.
Since he said he may not be coming back, it means he’s no longer a “resident” and should be disqualified from office. We have no interest in being ruled from afar.
What kind of question is that? A naturalized citizen is an American. Without that an immigrant is not an American.
or
If an immigrant Leaves The U.S. Indefinitely, How American is he?
Headline writers whould learn something about how the English language works.
They didn't want to mispronoun anybody.
I’m sure he will happily keep collecting a paycheck and his Dim supporters will still support him. Because, racism; or some other stupid reason.
I had to leave indefinitely, back to Oregon. Shudder....
Salman Bhojani, descended from the Mayflower Bhojanis no doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.