Resolved, the United States should abolish birthright citizenship.

As we are weighing costs versus benefits, the majority of my focus will be refuting the so called benefits, rather than listing the costs. As I will be proving that there are no benefits to birthright citizenship, any costs carried through will therefore win me the debate.Contention one: Birthright citizenship undermines the rule of law.With current U.S. law, immigrants who enter illegally and have a child are rewarded with citizenship. This offers an incentive to defy U.S. law. However, not only are illegal immigrants being rewarded for this, but they are also being protected from deportation.From the Center for Immigration Studies: (http://www.cis.org...)“Immigration authorities cannot deport the guestworker’s citizen child along with the overstaying guestworker. The result is that the guestworker makes the case for indefinite stay based on the principle of “keeping families together...”The dual incentive for committing this crime has led to an increase of birth tourism within the U.S.From the University of Texas Review of Law and Policy: (http://www.trolp.org...)"American law, as currently understood, provides and enormous inducement to illegal immigration: namely, an automatic grant of American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in this country. As a result, it has been estimated that over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals... and nearly 10% of all births in the nation in recent years were to illegal immigrant mothers. Many of these mothers frankly admitted that the reason they entered illegally was to give birth to an American citizen."By entering the country illegally, an immigrant has committed a crime. By having a citizen child, they are immune to punishment. This is completely unjustAs long as birthright citizenship remains the status quo, not only is blatant illegal exploitation of American hospitality possible, but it is rewarded.Contention two: Birthright citizenship harms the U.S. economy.From the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR:“Illegal immigration costs u.s. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.”Much of this cost is due to the fact that citizen children can garner welfare benefits for their parents. This places an enormous burden on local state governments. For example, California’s 2011 budget deficit was 14.5 billion dollars, but they spent 21.8 billion on expenditures on illegal immigrants. New York’s deficit was 6.8 billion dollars, while its expenditures were 9.5 billion.Thus, regardless of changes in immigration rates (more on this later), removing birthright citizenship will drastically help our economy. By removing the ability for illegal immigrants to benefit through their children, many states would not be in debt. It is also important to note that “when illegal workers are replaced with legal ones, wages, and consequently tax collections, tend to increase. Additionally, social assistance outlays presumably decrease as newly legally hired replacement workers become self-sufficient.” (http://www.fairus.org...)Overall, abolishing birthright citizenship will save the U.S. state and federal governments billions of dollars each year.Onto refuting my opponent’s first contention, that abolishing birthright citizenship will increase the amount of illegal immigrants in the country.However, note the methodology of the study he cites. According to this study, the amount of illegal immigrants will increase because illegal immigration rates will stay the same, but now the children of illegal immigrants will not be citizens.It is not hard to see flaws in this logic. To begin, the illegal immigration rate is currently declining fast. “An important recent study by my think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, titled “Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population” provides a wealth of data supporting this claim. After peaking in August 2007, the illegal population has fallen from 12.5 million to 11.2 million, or 11%, through May of 2008... Over the same period, legal immigration has remained constant… The report concludes that if the present decline were to continue, the illegal population would be cut in half within the next five years.” (http://www.cis.org...)Second, while the change may not be large, less immigrant children will be born each year, because they no longer provide benefits to illegal immigrants. I’m not going to claim that all illegal immigrants will no longer have children, as that would be ludicrous. However, it is just as ludicrous to assume that the illegal birth rate will stay the same, when evidence from my first contention shows that many illegal immigrant mothers have children for the benefits they provide.Then, note the second part of his contention, on the costs of illegal immigration. As mentioned in my second contention, most of this cost comes from the benefits citizen children garner for their illegal parents. Without birthright citizenship, these costs disappear. Even if the amount of illegal immigrants increases, which I have clearly shown it will not, the cost will not increase by much.My opponent’s second contention is that repealing birthright citizenship would be unconstitutional. First, I’d like to point out that a constitutional amendment is not outside the scope of this debate. If a guarantee of birthright citizenship is in the constitution, and the debate is about abolishing it, then it stands to reason that we are arguing over an amendment, or legislation clarifying the amendment. Second, the 14th amendment clearly states “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S, as they don’t pay all taxes, they cannot be drafted, and they do not have to serve jury duty. They are also in direct contradiction with the laws of the U.S, as shown in my first contention. Finally, let’s look at the opinion rendered in Wong Kim Ark case, which my opponent cites. “To be ‘completely subject’ to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.”“Now I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country. … The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject. … It is not to be admitted that the children of persons so situated become citizens by the accident of birth.”My opponent’s third contention is that abolishing birthright citizenship would be a costly and complex bureaucratic process. First, let’s look at the cost he mentions, $2.4 billion a year. That’s far less than the $100 billion dollar yearly cost of birthright citizenship as a whole. Second, let’s look at the burden he claims will be put on U.S. citizens. Note, however, that the United States and Canada are the only two developed economies in the world to offer birthright citizenship. Other countries are able to maintain a different system without becoming a bureaucratic mess, even when dealing with much worse immigration problems. I also fail to see how abolishing birthright citizenship will increase the amount of citizenship checks, and ask that my opponent clarify this in the next round.