Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

Thanks Con. I'll be presenting the same case that he ignored in his vote against me, because I'm extremely curious what his response to my arguments will be. ==My case==Framework:Obs 1: You can only eliminate a policy if you have a viable alternative, so it isn't enough to merely show birthright citizenship to be bad, but my opponent must also show another system to be good. Further, all advantages he offers must be unique to abolishing birthright citizenship, or else I can just solve the problem by other means. Non unique advantages should be ignored because they can, by defintion, be achieved in a simpler or less damaging way. Obs 2: I am not obligated to defend the status quo, I must only defend the basic principle of birthright citizenship, because other harmful or adverse effects can be solved using other means. Nonetheless, if both of us refute eachothers contentions you vote Pro because Pro is the status quo. Contention one: The slippery slopeConsider the concept of legitimacy; all governments can only perform actions if their ability to do so is viewed as legitimate by the majority of their people. For example, if the U.S. governments ability to collect taxes lost it's legitimacy and the entire population refused to pay taxes there would be little if anything the government could do about it. Likewise, governments cannot undertake actions if it doesn't have the legitimate ability to do so. How does this relate the birthright citizenship? To abolish the institution would require an amendment to the constitution, either revoking or changing the 14th. In the past, the government has nly amended the constitution in the face of turmoil and public distress, and most if not all of those amendments were to give more rights to the people. Doing the opposite, taking away rights from a large subset of the population, legitimitizes governmental authority to change the constitution on a whim, and places every constitutional right in danger. My opponent has made no impact substaintial enough to warrant a change in our fundamental law, immigration is nowhere near significant enough to justify this. Reason magezine reports[1]: "Actual instances of “birth tourism,” where moms expressly came here to deliver babies on American soil, accounted for about two-tenths of 1 percent of all births in 2006. And most of these moms were not poor, illegal Hispanics—Smith’s target group. They were rich Chinese moms on tourist visas." 0.2% of all births does not warrant an amendment. Contention two: JusticeLet's consider what happens when we abolish Birthright Citizenship. To assume that it will make the illegals go home is woefully ignorant; what will happen is that we have a group of people who were born and raised in the U.S., followed it's laws, and become a part of its culture who are not citizens. When they become adults and apply for jobs or colleges, their illegal status will be discovered and they will be deported and sent "home" to a country they've never lived in and they know nothing about. The only way for them to avoid this would be to work in jobs that traditionally belong to the illegal population such as low paying construction or janatorial positions, which would create a permenant under class and stamps out any chance of success that these individuals may have had. It is fundamentally unjust to force someone out of their home without good reason, and simply not having the proper papers cannot warrant forcing someone off of their private property. My Opponent must prove:A. Birthright citizenship has multiple unique disadvantages that outwiegh any harms of a new system and the harm of implementing that system. B. Abolishing birthright citizenship will lead to his alternative and C. Birthright citizenship is a problem that warrants a change in the constitution.1. http://reason.com...==Opponents Case==His first Contention relies mostly on anti-immigrant rhetoric. He hasn't really explained why I should have some divine right to live here because my ancestors may have aided in the takeover of the country and the extremination of the Native Americans. There's really no logic to asserting that I should be rewarded for what my ancestors did, unless I should be punished for their actions as well. Besides, he hasn't offered an alternative system anyway, so we have to go with Jus Soli. His second contention merely re-affirms my first. The worldview that we can change the Constiution because we dont want to help people whos ancestor came from Third world countries leads to constiutional rot and national destruction. Thus, I urge a vote for the Aff. I greatly anticipate my opponents response.