Indeed you are, though apparently there are cases of individual Anglican Priests having valid Orders because they’ve been ordained by Orthodox Bishops (or other similar but very rare predicaments), in the vast majority of cases Anglican Priests (indeed Anglican clergy in general) are nothing but laymen (this goes without saying about their female clergy) in robes.
yes you are correct. the baptism is valid but profession of faith, confirmation and first communion (preceded by sacramental confession) are required for them to come into full communion with the Catholic Church.
Yes, you are correct. Those orders are not recognized by the Catholic Church. They do not validly confirm.
You are correct the person would not need to be re-Confirmed. They would need to be Confirmed for the first time, the Anglican or Episcopalian attempt at performing the Sacrament was ineffective.
this is a 5 year old thread. Forum rules ask us not to resurrect old threads but instead to start new ones.But why though? Why is their Baptism accepted but Confirmation not?
If I may add to that, confirmation by a priest also requires proper jurisdiction of the bishop who gives the faculties. It is debatably whether Anglican bishops who even have valid holy orders have jurisdiction as an Ordinary at all. Because of the evidence against it, any confirmation by an Anglican priest (in any situation) can generally presumed to be invalid.