Should California savings plan exclude children of illegal immigrants?
Categories: Newborns
The California senate has introduced a bipartisan bill that would give every child born in that state a $500 savings account at birth. This money could only be used to pay for college or continuing education, as a down payment on a home or contributed to a retirement account. At the age of 18, the recipient would be required to reimburse the state's initial $500 investment.
The thinking is that if you get them started with saving at a young age, they will continue to put money aside for their future. However, my first thought upon reading this was that every baby born in California would be in debt upon exiting the womb.
But that concern is not what will most likely kill the bill. In addition to the $285 million price tag, many Californians are unhappy that the bill does not exclude children of illegal immigrants. Republican Senator Bob Dutton, one of the bill's original authors, has withdrawn his support after thousands of California residents questioned "what he was thinking."
The bill's other author, Democratic Senator Darrell Steinberg, feels that the opposition to the bill is unreasonable. "Let's get one thing straight: 90 percent of the calls and the talk radio and all the hysteria is about one issue and one issue only -- immigration," Steinberg said. "It is all about xenophobia and there is a lot of hatred out there and we need to stand up against it. A kid is a kid is a kid."
What do you think? Do you think giving every baby $500 to start a savings account is a good idea? No other state in the US has a program such as this, although something similar has increased savings in Britain.
And what about the children of illegal immigrants? Should they be excluded?
The thinking is that if you get them started with saving at a young age, they will continue to put money aside for their future. However, my first thought upon reading this was that every baby born in California would be in debt upon exiting the womb.
But that concern is not what will most likely kill the bill. In addition to the $285 million price tag, many Californians are unhappy that the bill does not exclude children of illegal immigrants. Republican Senator Bob Dutton, one of the bill's original authors, has withdrawn his support after thousands of California residents questioned "what he was thinking."
The bill's other author, Democratic Senator Darrell Steinberg, feels that the opposition to the bill is unreasonable. "Let's get one thing straight: 90 percent of the calls and the talk radio and all the hysteria is about one issue and one issue only -- immigration," Steinberg said. "It is all about xenophobia and there is a lot of hatred out there and we need to stand up against it. A kid is a kid is a kid."
What do you think? Do you think giving every baby $500 to start a savings account is a good idea? No other state in the US has a program such as this, although something similar has increased savings in Britain.
And what about the children of illegal immigrants? Should they be excluded?
Recent Posts
- Movies May Influence Children's Food Choices, Study Shows (2/09/2010)
- Report Cites 220 Cases of D.C. Teachers Abusing Students (2/09/2010)
- Chicago Candidate Drops Out of Race With Tearful Child On Display (2/09/2010)
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
- Carrie Underwood Worms Her Way Onto 'Sesame Street' (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JacindaQ. 3-06-2007 @ 12:50AM
Screw the illegal kids when it comes to government funding. I hope this bill dies, as it sounds like it will. Tax dollars paid by legal citizens (both naturalized and U.S.-born) should not go towards funding illegals. Even if they are kids! For those who are interested and able, by all means contribute charity to the illegals. But don't make all of us do it involuntarily!
Reply
Ethel 3-06-2007 @ 8:55AM
Even if the kids are children of illegal immigrants, when they are born in the state they are now citizens of the US. I am pretty sure since the money is for the child, there should be no argument there.
Reply
Ugh 3-06-2007 @ 11:49AM
Here's my opinion -
I personally think the US needs to change it's law about "if you are born in the US you are a citizen". I know that made sense a long time ago, but it doesn't anymore. Go around the world and look at other countries - even left leaning countries in Europe - and you will see that the US's policies about citizenship are really messed up and odd. Some of them are over the top nutso strict and others are like "If your parents are illegal and you are born here, nevermind - Welcome new citizen!" What the crap?! That doesn't even make sense in this day and age!
I know tons of Americans who have moved to Ireland or the UK and they think that if they have a baby born there their baby will automatically have citizenship - uh, no. The US is pretty unique in that aspect. I am pretty politically left leaning, but I think the US immigration/citizenship policy needs totally reworked. And obviously well it needs to get a handle on illegal immigration (which, from the outside, looks like thos people are totally being taken advantage of by big business - why it is has been overlooked for so long if you ask me.)
Now, having said all that...as citizens of course those children would be given that $500. If the scheme is like the one in the UK, the parents cannot touch the money. The money goes into a special savings account that the parents can add to, but cannot touch. The child is able to have access to the money themselves once they reach adulthood. If a child is a citizen how could you NOT give them the money? It has nothing to do with their parents...To discrinate on the basis of one's parents would be pretty awful.
If you are going to make those kids citizens then you have to treat them as such.
Reply