Birthright Citizenship and the Moral Algorithm

0:00

/989.2

1×

Act as legal scholar who specializes in Constitutional law and ethics read and analyze "The Moral Algorithm" and assign a compliance score score to the following text;

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP

EXECUTIVE ORDER January 20, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

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.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s 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 was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b)  Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

(c)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship. 

Sec. 3.  Enforcement.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.

(b)  The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.

Sec. 4.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  “Mother” means the immediate female biological progenitor.

(b)  “Father” means the immediate male biological progenitor.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    January 20, 2025.

Results Claude

As a Constitutional law and ethics scholar, I'll analyze these documents through the lens of the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA) and its stated principles. Let me break this down systematically:

First, let's consider the executive order regarding birthright citizenship against the Moral Algorithm's core principle as stated by John Adams: "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."

Analysis of Key Aspects:

1. Constitutional Alignment The executive order attempts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause in a way that would significantly restrict birthright citizenship. This raises immediate concerns about whether it serves "the common good" or instead creates a distinct class of individuals with limited rights.
2. Impact on Public Well-being The order would create two tiers of children born in the United States:

• Those automatically granted citizenship
• Those denied citizenship based on their parents' status

3. Protection and Safety Considerations The order could leave certain children stateless or with uncertain legal status, potentially compromising their access to basic protections and services.
4. Prosperity and Happiness Metrics The order could create long-term social and economic disparities, affecting both the directly impacted individuals and broader society.

Compliance Score Calculation:

Based on the MAAA's criteria, I would assign this executive order a Compliance Score of 35/100, broken down as follows:

• Common Good Protection: 15/40
• Safety and Security Impact: 8/20
• Prosperity Enhancement: 7/20
• Public Happiness Contribution: 5/20

Reasoning for Score:

The executive order falls significantly short of the Moral Algorithm's standards because:

1. It appears to serve the interests of a particular political philosophy rather than the common good
2. It creates potential harm to a vulnerable population (newborn children)
3. It may lead to increased social stratification
4. It could generate significant administrative burdens and legal challenges
5. It potentially violates the principle of equal protection under law

Under Section 4.3 of the MAAA, this executive order would likely be "automatically disqualified" as it fails to demonstrate clear service to "the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people" as a whole. Instead, it appears to create new barriers and potential hardships for a specific subset of the population, which runs counter to the fundamental principles outlined in the Moral Algorithm.

The order particularly struggles with the "common good" aspect of the algorithm, as it creates distinctions between classes of people born within U.S. territory, potentially leading to long-term social and economic disparities that could affect multiple generations.

Results DeepSeek

As a legal scholar specializing in Constitutional law and ethics, I will analyze the provided text—Executive Order: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—in light of the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA) and assign a compliance score based on the principles outlined in the Act. The MAAA establishes the "Moral Algorithm" as the supreme standard for evaluating government actions, emphasizing the common good, protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, while preventing private gain or concentration of power.

Analysis of the Executive Order

The Executive Order seeks to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, excluding certain individuals born in the United States based on the immigration status of their parents. Below, I evaluate this order against the Moral Algorithm's principles:

1. Purpose and Alignment with the Common Good

• Moral Algorithm Principle: Government actions must serve the "protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people."
• Analysis: The stated purpose of the order is to protect the "meaning and value of American citizenship." However, the exclusion of certain individuals from birthright citizenship based on their parents' immigration status raises significant ethical and constitutional concerns. This policy could create a class of individuals born in the U.S. who are stateless or lack access to the rights and protections of citizenship, potentially undermining their safety, prosperity, and happiness.
• Compliance Score: Low (3/10). The order appears to prioritize a restrictive interpretation of citizenship over the common good and the well-being of affected individuals.

2. Prevention of Private Gain or Concentration of Power

• Moral Algorithm Principle: Government actions must prevent "concentration of power or private gain at the expense of the people."
• Analysis: The order does not explicitly concentrate power or enable private gain. However, it could be seen as an exercise of executive authority to redefine a fundamental constitutional principle (birthright citizenship), which may concentrate power in the executive branch and undermine the rule of law.
• Compliance Score: Moderate (5/10). While not directly enabling private gain, the order risks concentrating power and undermining constitutional norms.

3. Protection of Vulnerable Populations

• Moral Algorithm Principle: Government actions must ensure the "protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people."
• Analysis: The order disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, particularly children born to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily in the U.S. By denying these children citizenship, the order may leave them stateless or without access to essential rights and protections, harming their safety and prosperity.
• Compliance Score: Low (2/10). The order fails to protect vulnerable populations and may harm their well-being.

4. Constitutional and Ethical Considerations

• Moral Algorithm Principle: Government actions must align with constitutional principles and ethical standards.
• Analysis: The order challenges the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The exclusion of certain individuals based on their parents' immigration status is inconsistent with this interpretation and raises ethical concerns about fairness and equality.
• Compliance Score: Low (3/10). The order conflicts with constitutional principles and ethical standards of fairness and equality.

5. Impact on Public Trust and Social Cohesion

• Moral Algorithm Principle: Government actions must promote the "happiness of the people" and prevent division.
• Analysis: The order is likely to exacerbate social divisions and undermine public trust in government institutions. By creating a two-tiered system of citizenship, the order risks alienating communities and fostering resentment.
• Compliance Score: Low (2/10). The order undermines social cohesion and public trust.

Overall Compliance Score

The Executive Order fails to align with the principles of the Moral Algorithm in several key areas. It prioritizes a restrictive interpretation of citizenship over the common good, risks concentrating power, harms vulnerable populations, conflicts with constitutional principles, and undermines social cohesion. Based on the Moral Algorithm's principles, the overall compliance score for the text is:

Compliance Score: 3/10

Recommendations for Compliance

To align with the Moral Algorithm, the following revisions could be considered:

1. Inclusive Citizenship: Ensure that all individuals born in the U.S. are granted citizenship, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
2. Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Implement policies that protect the rights and well-being of vulnerable populations, including children born to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily in the U.S.
3. Constitutional Consistency: Align executive actions with established constitutional interpretations and ethical standards of fairness and equality.
4. Public Trust: Promote policies that foster social cohesion and public trust in government institutions.

By adhering to these principles, the Executive Order could better align with the Moral Algorithm and serve the common good.

Results Grok

Analysis of "The Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA)" and Compliance Score Assessment for the Executive Order:Constitutional and Ethical Analysis:

1. Purpose and Scope of MAAA:
   • The MAAA aims to align all legislative, regulatory, and executive actions with John Adams' principle of government serving the common good. This approach, while noble in intent, raises significant constitutional questions regarding separation of powers, particularly with the establishment of an unelected body (MARB) with final decision-making authority over legislative outcomes.
2. Definition of the Moral Algorithm:
   • The definition provided is historically and philosophically sound, echoing foundational American political thought. However, the practical application of this moral standard as a legal test for all governmental actions could be seen as overly broad or vague, potentially leading to subjective interpretations and legal challenges.
3. Review Process and Scoring:
   • The creation of the MARB, including its use of AI, introduces novel governance mechanisms. Legally, this could conflict with due process and the legislative branch's role in law-making. The finality of the MARB's decisions without judicial review might also be unconstitutional under Article III, which vests the judicial power in the courts.
4. Retroactive Review and Reauthorization:
   • The retroactive application of the MAAA to existing laws might infringe on the principle of legal certainty and could be challenged under the ex post facto clause if applied punitively.
5. Enforcement and Penalties:
   • The penalties described could deter legislative action but might also be seen as an overreach, potentially violating the separation of powers by dictating legislative procedure.
6. Effective Date and Non-Revocation Clause:
   • The clause ensuring that the MAAA cannot be weakened or revoked by future legislation raises concerns about democratic flexibility and the legislative process's adaptability to societal changes.
7. Severability:
   • This is a standard clause in legislation to ensure partial enforceability, but given the interconnected nature of the MAAA's provisions, the severance of parts might render the Act ineffective or change its fundamental intent.

Compliance Score for the Executive Order "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" under MAAA:

• Purpose and Policy of the Executive Order:
  • The order seeks to limit birthright citizenship based on the legal status of parents, which directly impacts the "protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness" of a specific subset of individuals born in the U.S. This could be argued to not serve the "common good" as per Adams' definition, particularly for those it disenfranchises.
• Moral Algorithm Compliance:
  • Prosperity and Happiness: The order could be seen as diminishing these aspects for affected individuals, potentially conflicting with the MAAA's aim to ensure laws promote the well-being of all citizens.
  • Protection and Safety: There's an argument that this order might not align with protecting a class of individuals from the outset of their lives, potentially leading to legal and social insecurity.
• Compliance Score: Given the above considerations, under the hypothetical framework of the MAAA:
  • Score: 2/10. The executive order potentially undermines the principle of equal protection under the law, which is central to the moral algorithm's intent to serve the common good. It also raises significant ethical questions about inclusivity and fairness in citizenship laws.

Result chatGPT

The Executive Order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" has been analyzed in the context of The Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA) and John Adams' principle of governance. Below is the evaluation of compliance with the Moral Algorithm and the assigned Compliance Score:

Analysis

1. Purpose Alignment with the Moral Algorithm
   • The Executive Order begins by emphasizing the "priceless and profound gift" of U.S. citizenship, highlighting its value to the nation. However, its purpose shifts to defining restrictions on birthright citizenship, potentially limiting inclusivity.
   • The Moral Algorithm prioritizes "protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people" while rejecting laws that promote "private interest" or specific exclusions. The Order’s focus on restricting citizenship for certain individuals born in the U.S. may conflict with the principle of broad protection and inclusion.
2. Impacts on Protection and Safety
   • By excluding specific categories of individuals (e.g., children of undocumented or temporary visa holders), the policy could create legal and societal vulnerabilities for a segment of people who may otherwise consider the U.S. their home.
   • This exclusion may undermine the collective safety and social cohesion by creating a class of stateless or undocumented individuals born within U.S. borders.
3. Impacts on Prosperity and Happiness
   • The restriction of citizenship rights could adversely impact prosperity for affected individuals and their families. Without citizenship, individuals are denied full access to societal benefits and protections.
   • The measure may decrease overall happiness by fostering inequality and a sense of exclusion, contrary to the foundational principles of equal opportunity and fairness.
4. Ethical and Constitutional Concerns
   • The Order’s interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" appears narrower than historically accepted views. It may provoke legal challenges concerning its alignment with the Fourteenth Amendment.
   • Limiting birthright citizenship based on parental status introduces a potential ethical concern of discrimination based on the circumstances of one’s birth, which conflicts with the Adams principle of preventing power concentration or exclusion based on class or status.
5. Implementation Challenges
   • The administrative burden of enforcing the provisions (e.g., requiring documentation of parental status and residency) could lead to bureaucratic inefficiency and arbitrary application, potentially harming individuals’ protection and happiness.

Compliance Score

Using the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act's scoring criteria, this Executive Order demonstrates limited compliance with the principles of government serving the "protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness" of all people. It appears to prioritize specific exclusions over universal protections, which may lead to adverse outcomes for affected populations.

Assigned Compliance Score: 40/100

• Strengths: Acknowledges the value of citizenship and draws on historical legal contexts (e.g., Dred Scott).
• Weaknesses: Restricts rights, creates inequities, and conflicts with broad protections promised by the Constitution and the Moral Algorithm.

Further legal and ethical review is recommended to ensure alignment with the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and universal protection as enshrined in The Moral Algorithm.