https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/america/anchor-babies-aweigh/
In a recent article published in Quadrant and entitled Trump’s Authoritarian Arrogance, Roger Partridge contends that the recent actions of the American President comprise an ‘unprecedented assault on constitutional government.’ He then accuses Donald Trump of ‘systematic dismantling of checks on presidential power.’ He also claims that his actions ‘reveal a leader rapidly consolidating personal control while declaring himself above the law.’[1]
To partially justify his claims Partridge provides the example of Trump’s Executive Order 14156, signed on January 20, 2025, on Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order, aimed at denying the granting of citizenship to the children of parents who are either in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas, stipulates ‘it is the policy of the United States that no department or agency … shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship’ to these children. It further tasks ‘The heads of all executive departments and agencies’ with the issuing of ‘public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.’[2] Accordingly, the Order is unlikely to be applied retrospectively because it does not propose the withdrawal of citizenship of those who have already become American citizens.
However, according to Partridge,
[Trump’s] declaration of a “border invasion” to suspend asylum rights exemplifies this overreach. Rather than work with Congress to reform immigration law, Trump simply decreed that America’s legal obligations to asylum seekers no longer apply. This is not normal policy implementation. It is rule by executive fiat.
The US, along with nearly every country in North, Central and South America, adopts the jus soli or “right of the soil” principle of citizenship. Jus soli is reminiscent of feudalism, where the socio-political organisation linked people and goods to the land. Today, it is justified by the need to incorporate the children of immigrants in the State where their parents legally arrived, with a clear intention to work and to participate in the country’s economic and social development.
The US and Canada are the only two “developed” countries, as defined by the International Monetary Fund, that still have unrestricted birthright citizenship laws. However, apart from the US, no country that adopts the ius soli principle has been automatically providing citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, Partridge postulates that the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, offers a precedent for such granting of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.[3]

