Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States.

Rebuttal:1. The point of my argument is not that the benefits should or should not exist. I am simply saying that the "immense benefits" are not a necessary aspect of "citizenship"--and they are irrelevant to the resolution at hand. If the problem is, indeed, that there is too much incentive for immigrants to get citizenship because of benefits, then an entirely different debate can be had about what benefits ought to come with citizenship. But, as my opponent has seemingly failed to acknowledge, this is, indeed, an entirely different debate. We are strictly talking about "citizenship" in the context of the definition I provided (which was not contested by my opponent.) Any additional benefits that are attached to citizenship are simply not germane. 2. "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [emphasis mine]"I have stated that "aliens" is meant to modify/elaborate on "foreigners." And "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" modifies both of them. I think it is clear for anyone with a basic knowledge of grammar that the stated exception only applied to those who were the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers; this is not talking about all foreign people. The interpretation my opponent is putting across defies fundamental grammar and logic, and I can't imagine why she didn't simply drop the argument.3. My opponent originally put forward a plan of action, which assumed that the current system is a problem--and I rightfully argued that she has prove that the system is problematic before taking that further step. Now, she is trying to insert arguments for her solution last second (e.g., "Everyone would get a fair turn in line for a naturalization test and once a parent becomes legal (fairly) then their children could become citizens and enjoy citizenship"), which is pretty unfair. Anyway, her new arguments here are vague, inadequate (by failing to account for a transitional period, for example), and easily outweighed by my counter-arguments (from this round and past rounds.) ---Counter-Arguments:1. I never denied that such a factor can be "considered." But my opponent's source fails to contradict the idea that it is rare for illegal immigrant parents to be kept here just because of their children, when their status is put under consideration by immigration officers. Anyway, the argument my opponent posed isn't necessarily relevant, unless we assume that Obama's policy ought to be upheld. One could easily take my side by opposing Obama's policy, while upholding the statute of birthright citizenship. In other words, Obama's recent policy does not mean that birthright citizenship ought to be abolished; it could just mean that Obama's policy (regarding considering parental citizenship based on child status) itself ought to be abolished. So this argument doesn't really support my opponent's stance.2. Opponent dropped.---Conclusion: Birthright citizenship shouldn't be abolished. My opponent didn't come remotely close to meeting her burden of proof; the status quo holds. Vote Con.Thanks.