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

Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States.Definitions: I agree with the definitions my opponent provided, but I would like to add another one that is central to the debate, I believe:Citizen (n): "A member of a free city or jural society, possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties." [1] Burden of Proof: My opponent carries full burden of proof. In policy debate, status quo is accepted until deemed null. Rebuttal:1. In her first argument, my opponent puts forward the claim that the fiscal and social benefits that come with citizenship provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to have children in the United States. At first, this may seem like a very convincing case... However, we need to remember that "citizenship," by our definition, does not entail a "right" to "medicaid, temporary and immediate assistance to needy families and food stamps, [and] schooling" (quoting my opponent.) What my opponent has described are policies that have been attached to citizenship in the United States; certainly, we must distinguish these from the true foundations of citizenship. Most of these policy-driven fiscal and social incentives of citizenship can be removed. In other words, one can reform "benefits of citizenship" to a great extent without removing the core of citizenship altogether.2. The quote that my opponent offers is incomplete, so its message has been completely distorted; the omission of the rest of the excerpt, in my opinion, exhibits very poor conduct--and voters should take note of this. Here is the complete quote (from 1866 Congressional Globe) that is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard: "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." [2] As we can see, Howard was very clearly in support of the contemporary mainstream interpretation of the 14th amendment, which supports birthright citizenship (as reinforced by Supreme Court decisions such as that found in US v. Wong Kim Ark [3])--however, with the exception of ambassadors and foreign ministers, who, at the time, were considered ineligible because of their roles that dealt with international representation. 3. The point of contention is whether or not there is a problem with birthright citizenship in the first place. I feel no obligation to counter my opponent's plan of action--which assumes that an alternative ought to be found for the current system. ---Counter-Arguments: 1. Illegal Immigrants' True Motivations:Unauthorized immigrants actually do not, in fact, benefit greatly from their childrens' legal citizen status. A birthright citizen has to wait until he/she is 21 years of age and receives a middle-class wage in order to sponsor his/her parents for immigration status. [4] It is not uncommon for illegal parents to be deported, despite having children who are legal citizens--and this makes them have to either bring the children back with them to their home country or give them up to state-run child welfare institutions. And in order to acquire a legal immigration visa that would enable them to acquire citizenship through their children, the illegal immigrant has to leave the US--and this leads to a "three-to-ten year bar" from the United States that cannot be waived because of their children's legal citizenship status. [5] Indeed, it is far more likely that illegal immigrants are more greatly incentivized by the prospects of getting positions of work and visiting family, based on the serious restrictions on parental benefit derived from birthright citizenship policy--and the possibility of being taken away from one's children.2. Demographic Realities in a Land of Immigrants:According to the findings of the Migration Policy Institute (a non-partisan thinktank that focuses on population matters), repealing birthright citizenship would have disastrous effects that directly oppose the motivations of those who are looking to repeal it. According to its findings, if birthright citizenship were repealed in 2009, the percentage of unauthorized children would double by 2050 to four percent. And according to the analysis, by 2050, there would be 4.7 million unauthorized immigrants who were born in the United States--1 million of whom would have two US-born parents. [6] Indeed, such a reform would produce an excluded underclass of people who are completely culturally and linguistically oriented within the United States. From a pragmatic standpoint, such a reform would have extreme social and fiscal effects that would adversely affect all of those living in the United States, citizens or not. ---Conclusion:My opponent's first point is invalid because it confuses the policies associated with citizenship (e.g., food stamps) with citizenship itself; in other words, it is built off of the undefended premise that the policies ought to be affiliated with citizenship in the first place. My opponent's second point is invalid because it is framed around an incomplete excerpt; I have provided a full quote, which certainly attacks the resolution of this debate rather than supports it. My opponent's third point is simply an extension of the resolution after it has been affirmed... However, my opponent's objective in this debate is to affirm it.In my counter-arguments, I put forward the proposition that immigrants are not primarily incentivized by the possibility of birthright citizenship for their children due to the heavy risks and ramifications it carries. I also explained the demographic catastrophe that repealing birthright citizenship would cause through MPI's findings through statistical analysis. I have countered the motion called for in the resolution. Birthright citizenship should not be abolished. Thank you. Vote Con. ---Sources:[1] http://thelawdictionary.org...[2] http://theusconstitution.org...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] http://object.cato.org... [5] http://www.visalaw.com...[6] http://www.migrationpolicy.org...