The text of an executive order crossed my screen and left me muttering and not (just) for political reasons. The order fails to define terms and consequently is self-contradictory.

…The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 

…Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

From: Protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship, Executive Order, 20-Jan-2025

I have so many questions!

• If the person born (the baby) is not subject to the jurisdiction of America, does that mean it’s not subject to American law?
• Does that mean that if one of the parents is an illegal immigrant, abortion isn’t illegal, because the person born isn’t subject to American jurisdiction?

• Assuming the parents are subject to American jurisdiction (the executive order states that only the person born in the specified circumstances, meaning to an illegally immigrated parent, isn’t) then does that mean that the person born can do whatever they want?
• This executive order specifies that they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of America and the only template we have for that is people with diplomatic immunity. Can they, when old enough to do so obviously, break American laws without consequence?
• Is this creating a defense for things like robbery by the parents, like of a grocery store or a bank, if they declare that the baby made them do it?

Well, Section 5. General Provisions, subsection (c) states that this executive order doesn’t “create any right or benefit… by any party [to act] against” anyone else, so maybe not. Then again, I’m not a defense attorney. I bet a case could be made….

And while there isn’t a Glossary by name, there is Section 4. Definitions. Sadly it fails to define anything I truly want to know, like what the heck is the point here? An EO can’t change the US Constitution and while it has the force of law, as per the Constitution (I think), it can’t reverse or change laws in any state, let alone all of them.

This executive order has already been challenged in court.

Note: This executive order further states that none of this applies to anyone born before the order was issued or for 30 days after. See Section 2. Policy, subsections (a) and (b). Meaning anyone born to an illegal immigrant parent who, under the interpretation of the US Constitution and American law before this, was previously granted citizenship and citizenship papers, keeps them.