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

Thank you for your response, Con. For my final round, I will again rebuild my case, move on to attack my opponent's, and offer my conclusion and some key voters. Rebuilding: contention one: My opponent says that I'm, "still," (in italics, as he put it) talking about the benefits of citizenship. Of course I'm going to continue to talk about it. As long as these benefits are being offered to babies of illegal parents, and until he proves that these benefits pose no harms, yes. I'm still going to talk about them. He acts as though I'm droning on about my argument that has been long disproven, but I'd like to remind the community that he is yet to rebut it legitimately. My opponent's initial argument to my first contention was that they didn't really benefit that much, but when I reminded him that the anchor babies are granted Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling and other welfares, their parents are given priority over other people waiting naturalization tests, they have the right to vote, international protection, access to good jobs, student aid, all constitutional rights, and much more, my opponent dropped his claim, which means agrees with me that they do indeed get immense benefits. He reiterates that the benefits can be taken away, and that they should. What my opponent literally just suggested was that we get rid of Medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, schooling and other welfares, the right to vote, international protection, access to good jobs, student aid, all constitutional rights, and more citizenship benefits. Let me run that by you one last time. My opponent suggested we get rid of those benefits for all U. S. citizens. Rebuilding: contention two:My opponent starts off his attack by saying that I am "pulling punches after the fight has finished. " Con, if the fight was finished, we would be in the voting period. After my opponent decided that he cannot rebut my defending argument, he throws out a new proposition. My opponent now argues the placement of commas in Howard's quote. "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. .. " My opponent's new point is that "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," is used to elaborate on what a foreigner is. Not only would this be grammatically incorrect (if this were true, the comma after "aliens," would not be present) but it is completely, obviously, blatantly, wrong. It is a list of circumstances (hence the serial commas). My opponent says (word for word) that "'aliens' is meant to elaborate on 'foreigners,' and it is not followed by a serial comma," but if you look at the quote for a fraction of a second, you would see that both foreigners and aliens are both followed by, you guessed it, a comma. He even included the quote from Mr. Howard in his own rebuttal, and you'll see that it has commas. I'm sure we've all attended an English class at some point or another, and I will now pass the entire quote on to the community to read: "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. " The use of commas were, quite frankly, serial commas. This means that my entire second contention still stands. Rebuilding: contention three: My opponent dropped my third contention. He did not argue it within the first round, therefore he conceded to it long ago. He is now trying to pick it back up, but that simply does not work. However, for the value of the community, I will accept the con's challenging statement, "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. " I would like to reiterate that this is not an argument for the con, as he has already dropped and conceded to the argument, but for the community to fully understand the basis of my contention. The difference between U. S. citizenship criteria and U. K citizenship criteria is not actually very different. In fact, there is only one small aspect that is dissimilar. Both countries say that basically "If you're born on our soil, you are automatically a citizen and can enjoy the benefits of citizenship," however, the U. K. requires you to have at least one parent that is already a a citizen. Converting to this law would fix everything. Citizens would be able to enjoy benefits given for being a citizen, but the system could not be cheated. 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. This would take care of all the problems we face with unfair cuts in line, taxes due to parental deportation, and much more. This is the perfect solution. I will now move on to attack my opponent's contentions. Attacking: his contention one: My opponent says that it is a "rare occurrence," that an anchor baby will cause a judge to grant legal status to aliens. I'd like to offer the information that On June 17, 2011, the Obama administration announced that immigration officials no longer have to deport illegal aliens -- if they have children that are U. S. citizens. Consider this quote from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement: "When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, whether the person has a U. S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;" That doesn't look very "rare" to me. Attacking: his contention two: This can be adequately rebutted if I just copied/pasted my last argument to this very same contention. Please refer to my last "Attacking his contention two," paragraph. To reinforce, I would not repeal the 14th amendment. I would replace the citizenship clause with U. K. laws. Previously, I stated why U. K. laws would be more applicable. My final conclusion: The con's case has no foot to stand on. Initially, I was going to make a list here of arguments he dropped. Now I realize I cannot make such a list due to the amount of my time it would take.