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

---Rebuttal:1. What my opponent is still talking about is the benefits associated with citizenship (and I avoid the use of "rights" because that implies an absolute entitlement. ) I agree that all citizens should receive the same benefits; what I am saying is that the benefits are subject to change, or more specifically, to be taken away. If there were fewer citizenship "benefits" to begin with, then there would be less incentive for birthright citizenship. Indeed, the argument posed here by my opponent does not describe an issue with citizenship, but rather describes an issue with the benefits that have been made to come with citizenship--and the incentives that come with them. 2. What my opponent is doing here is pulling punches after the fight has finished. Let me share, again, the full excerpt that my opponent is referring to: "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. " In this quote, we can see--based on conventional grammar/interpretation--that the first sentence states that people born "within the limits of the United States" are to be deemed citizens (and "aliens" is meant to elaborate on "foreigners," and it is not followed by a serial comma); the second sentence puts forward an exception, involving the children of foreign ambassadors and ministers (because it was assumed at the time that they were not technically on the US soil based on their roles as representatives--but he "include[d] every other class of persons. " This interpretation is upheld by many legal scholars, including legal scholar Garrett Epps and history professor Eric Foner. [7] 3. In order to make her plan of action relevant, my opponent would have to prove that the following her plan (and transitioning to the system she is proposing) is superior to the birthright citizenship rule. The only reason given was that America is "one of the few advanced countries who still apply birthright policy" (and of course, we will not fall for an argumentum ad populum like this. ) Otherwise, her argument is built on the premise that birthright citizenship should be abolished, but this has yet to be proven. ---Counter-Arguments:1. My opponent is changing the information that she is gathering from her sources. CIS. org does not say that an anchor baby "often" causes a judge to grant legal status to aliens; rather, it says "under some quite precise circumstances. " Indeed, this is a rare occurence, not something that happens "often," as my opponent unfairly worded it. [8] Voters should take note of this when it comes to conduct. My opponent then follows up by listing the benefits of citizenship again. Please see my first argument (for both rounds) about why this sort of argument is irrelevant to the matter at hand; the incentives that come with many of the benefits being listed can easily be taken away without removing the label of "citizenship. "2. The study does not describe repealing the 14th amendment (as my opponent mistakenly suggests), and I never said that it did. The study strictly describes what would happen if the birthright citizenship standard were repealed. The results described in the argument are catastrophic; the idea of a million non-citizens with two American-born parents is, indeed, a horrific portrayal of the likely results of abolishing the birthright citizenship rule; this would lead to a perpetual underclass of people (who would have few to no connections with their ancestors' home country) through the generations. [9] And my opponent's central argument throughout this debate is to do just that--to repeal the birthright citizenship standard, as the resolution states. And she has yet to prove why her "UK system" alternative would somehow offset the results of this MIP non-partisan study. ---Conclusion: Again, I have clearly countered the motion called for in the resolution. Birthright citizenship should not be abolished. Thank you. And again, I urge you to vote Con. ---Sources:[7] . http://mediamatters.org...[8] . http://www.cis.org...[9] . http://www.migrationpolicy.org...