Missouri AG backs up Trump’s birthright citizenship order, argues 14th Amendment has been ‘perverted’
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey recently defended President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, arguing that the 14th Amendment clause upon which the policy is based has been “perverted.” Bailey explained in an interview with Fox News Digital that the 14th Amendment was never meant to incentivize the violation of national immigration laws. He pointed out that President Biden’s administration had made several attempts to circumvent or defy appropriations laws, and he had challenged each one. Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship has faced numerous legal challenges.
Bailey further clarified that the 14th Amendment was originally drafted and ratified after the Civil War to address issues like the infamous Dred Scott decision. The amendment aimed to protect individuals like Dred Scott and acknowledge citizenship for former slaves and their descendants. However, it was not until more than a century later that the amendment was used to confer birthright citizenship to illegal aliens. Legal expert Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation corroborated this historical context.
The Missouri Attorney General also defended another controversial executive order by Trump, which temporarily halted the flow of federal appropriations funding. Trump signed this order to ensure that federal agencies aligned with the new administration’s policies before distributing funds. Bailey emphasized that the president has the authority to determine how appropriations laws are implemented and executed.
Bailey criticized Biden’s administration for refusing to build the border wall, despite Congress appropriating funds for it. He highlighted Missouri’s leadership in challenging the previous administration’s actions successfully. Bailey questioned why critics on the left remained silent on issues where Biden attempted to allocate funds without congressional approval, such as using taxpayer money to pay off student loan debt.
Meanwhile, opponents of Trump have initiated legal challenges to block his executive orders. The ACLU sued over the birthright citizenship order, arguing its unconstitutionality, with support from twenty-two Democrat-led states. The debate revolves around the interpretation of the law, with Trump’s opponents contending that only the children of foreign diplomats, not all individuals born on U.S. soil, are excluded from becoming U.S. citizens as per the text of the law.
As the legal battles continue, it is evident that the issue of birthright citizenship remains a contentious topic with far-reaching implications. The clash of interpretations of the 14th Amendment and the executive orders issued by different administrations underscores the ongoing struggle to define and uphold immigration laws and policies in the United States.
