it isn't as easy as thinking 'well if they aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' then we can't convict them. There are different types of 'jurisdiction' when it comes to such events. For some additional thinking on it, think of individuals that commit crimes in one country and flee to another country, and the extradition rights and duties involved for the respective countries, depending on citizenship of person involved (could be up to three countries: citizenship country of criminal; country of crime; country fled to). Here's some light reading on the US-Mexican treaty:
https://wilj.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1270/2023/02/40.1_171-204_Leon.pdf.wong kim ark provides a lengthy and long reading of history of the phrase etc. Not only does it have multiple references throughout generally speaking about the 14th not applying to people in the US without permission (invaders, etc), the question and holding specifically do NOT include someone coming over illegally (or for the sole purpose of having a baby, which, yes, does happen).
we get 'birthright citizenship' from a footnote from Brennan in a 5-4 decision in Plyler v Doe referencing Wong Kim Ark (footnote 19;
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457202/usrep457202.pdf) but he seems to exclude some important references before his quote:
"The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here
born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships,
or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
The question and holding of Wong Kim Ark are clear about what it was being applied to:
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China,
but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,
and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.'"
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China,
but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
A proper reading and interpretation of the 14th and historical documents would show that 1) birthright citizenship was NOT decided in wong kim ark; and 2) not intended by the 14th. The problem with an EO is that it can simply be reversed by another administration. Even if the EO applies the proper definition, it could be reversed as outside the bounds of the Executive (possibly rightly so; congress has given way too many powers away to the executive). The SCOTUS COULD however provide guidance to congress. instead of waiting on SCOTUS (by which time, dems may be back in power), congress should immediately try to amend the laws regarding citizenship. Define people that have snuck is as enemies trying to occupy or as invaders or however it needs to be done to align with the WELL documented intent that the 14th does not apply to certain people. I don't trust that the spineless cowards in congress would ever do this. They should, though.
edit: change/add the definitions as necessary here: 8 U.S. Code 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 
