all 74 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 175 points 6 months ago (20 children)

Normalization of removing rights. They're coming after political opponents next.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -50 points 6 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 56 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    every single country plays it like that

    If I have a debt to the government, they send me collection letters and garnish my wages. They don't take away my passport for such stuff. Stop with the normalization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    The US government may only revoke passports for reasons of national security. Someone being behind on bills does not meet that criteria. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/280/

    https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research/155/

    "In Haig v. Agee, the United States Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to revoke a passport when the bearer's activities abroad "**are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States." **

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I did not get through the entire opinion, but don't think it says what you think it says.

    The question presented is whether the President, acting through the Secretary of State, has authority to revoke a passport on the ground that the holder's activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

    The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The Supreme Court can make up whatever bullshit they want. They just gutted the Voting Rights Act, why not this too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Freedom of travel is a right, it's why any states license is valid in any others. Unfortunately republicans have upped id requirements to include passports in common occasions, so this is actually an attack on freedom of travel. But since Americans get off on punishment most of us won't see a problem. Also because we're stupid, just see any comment defending this move.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [M] 4 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    This comment was reported for "Racism"

    I have removed this comment, but not for that, as "Trustafarian" isn't a race - it's slang for "trust fund kids that live a hedonistic lifestyle".

    I removed it for misinformation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Sorry, but just so I understand - what exactly was the "misinformation"? I'm not clear on what was either objectionable or incorrectly claimed to be untrue.

    For anyone salty about the fact that a government owns your passports, I don't have time to dig out a hundred statutes, but can you can refer to

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.7 and

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passports-introducing-her-majestys-passport-office

    For the US and UK.

    Also, "Trustafarian" isn't a race, it's slang for rich kids that pretend to be poor and live a hedonistic lifestyle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Sure, an administration that follows the law might agree with this interpretation.

    My point is that the government has authority to act and individuals have to sue to fight it. I'm not saying that revoking a visa over unpaid child support is a correct interpretation, or even "right" in a subjective moral sense. I'm saying it's within the NSPM-7 definition of what they can do to act first and let objectively shitbag people sue them to undo it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 38 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Okay everyone, say it with me!

    It's because they're black, isn't it?!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago*

    From the article:

    Passport revocations for unpaid child support of more than $2,500 is allowed under a rarely-enforced 1996 federal law.

    Previously, the consequence was only doled out when people with such debt sought to renew their passports.

    So, not new, just being more strongly enforced.

    Edit: more context

  • source
  • [–] 59 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Imagine coming up with policies that actually help people rather than punish them. This is weird and sets such a dangerous precedent.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    It's weird because that's basically the entire Republican voter base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996

    Never forget how shitty Bill Clinton was.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Outside of specific shitty Bill Clinton reasons, the problem is enough of the electorate bought into the lazy welfare queen myth and the Democrats got the presidency because they were third-waying it (and Perot and Gulf War I). Bootstrap fever was high in the nineties.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Do you think playing into the myth helped Clinton? Or do you think people who buy it vote republican anyway, just like Kamala bragging about securing the border against migrant terror caravans, loans for small businesses, the most lethal military, etc?

    Because to me it looks like he's just admitting the republicans were right, but saying they'll be more competent at harming minorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    White moderates and centrists believed the myth. A lot of the same ones who thought that abortions after n weeks should be illegal. A much larger portion of the electorate were truly swing voters back then and would be willing to split their ticket. While talk radio brainwashing was underway, it hadn’t reach cable news until 96. It’s why California elected republicans Pete Wilson. Politics have really changed in the past 30 to 40 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I don’t like this at all and it’s wrong.

    Also, fuck parents who don’t pay child support for their own kids.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Also, fuck parents who don’t pay child support for their own kids.

    I can't wholeheartedly agree with this statement, only because it puts the onus on the lowest rung involved parties.

    Instead, I believe "fuck governments that don't provide enough support for a single parent to comfortably raise a kid."

    I don't have kids, I don't want to have kids, but I also don't want to live in a world where a kid could starve or succumb to the elements because their parents weren't ready to have or raise a child. If a parent who doesn't pay child support means that their child's well-being is negatively affected, then a child with only one living parent could experience the same negative effects. Why should any single parent, or child of a single parent feel stress due to the absence of a single-entity third party?

    Working in education, I frequently meet parents who don't want to be parents, and shouldn't be parents. I met people who believe that financial support equals ownership, and only continue harming their children because of mandated financial responsibilities. I meet single parents who are legitimately glad that the other party doesn't pay child support, because it equals freedom from oppression or abuse for the parent and child.

    This comment kinda sounds like I'm attacking you, and I apologize for that, it's not my intent. My intent is to break as many people as possible from the belief that it's okay that raising a child costs two incomes. Raising a child should cost zero incomes, so that the people raising a child can experience the child as just a child and never a financial burden. I can't even say "fuck parents who don't help out," because there are plenty of parents who I don't want to see involved at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Nah, you’re good, I don’t feel attacked and I totally get where you are coming from. I don’t actually disagree with you, I think there should be more support for children and parents.

    My comment is more a knee jerk reaction to “parents” like my father who decided it was more important to feed his affair partner’s 4 children over his own, even though they had child support from their father. He argued in court to reduce child support for his own 2 kids because he had 4 other kids at home to feed.

    Yes, the government should step up in situations like that and there needs to be better support systems. I think breakfast, lunch, and sometimes even dinner should be provided at schools and kids shouldn’t have to ever pay for it. And this is coming from a woman who has never and will never have children. No kid should ever go hungry, period.

    I’ll modify my comment to: Fuck the kinds of parents like my dad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I'm so sorry you had to deal with that, and fuck your dad indeed. While I spent my previous comment railing against the institution vs the individual, I now see your comment as railing against the individual who does not use the established institution.

    That's one of those "you would have helped more if you'd tried less," kind of scenarios. I'll never understand a parent who will punish children for their own choices.

    I hope that you're doing better now, and I hope that telling your experiences helps to prevent or end even one situation similar to yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    It’s all good. Probably didn’t help that my comment was pretty generic, I can see why you mentioned what you did and I totally agree with you.

    I’m good now, just get a little bitter at times. He died of a non-inheritable cancer a few years ago and I felt more empathy that my Aunts lost their brother than anything. It’s been 30 years since he was around, so it’s hard to care much.

    I honestly do hope someone reads my comment and rethinks how they treat their daughter some day. Just don’t be a dick to your kid and take care of them.

    Have yourself a good day and tell those kids to read more books lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    I meet single parents who are legitimately glad that the other party doesn't pay child support, because it equals freedom from oppression or abuse for the parent and child.

    I'm wondering where you are, since afaik, support and visitation/custody are generally separated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Texas, and you are mostly correct. The people who say this are usually the ones who got full custody, no visitations, and the spouse stopped sending checks or quit their job out of spite. I've heard the remaining parent say that they'll gladly give up child support if it means that they never have to think about their ex again.

    Back to the Texas part, and why you're "mostly" correct. Because it's Texas: where the wife is always wrong and the laws only protect those for whom it is enforced. Also, who are the police gonna trust? The overreacting parent who keeps calling them, or the one who always says they weren't doing anything?

    "Oops, send out another Amber alert. The parent really should have said something if they knew this was gonna happen. Also, we would have been more likely to believe them if they didn't keep telling us all the time that this was going to happen."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Back to the Texas part, and why you're "mostly" correct. Because it's Texas: where the wife is always wrong and the laws only protect those for whom it is enforced. Also, who are the police gonna trust? The overreacting parent who keeps calling them, or the one who always says they weren't doing anything?

    "Oops, send out another Amber alert. The parent really should have said something if they knew this was gonna happen. Also, we would have been more likely to believe them if they didn't keep telling us all the time that this was going to happen."

    I'm in the Deep South, so yes, in cases of narcissistic abuse, crazymaking behavior is real, and the courts are just shit about it, even women judges and women on the juries (there's also the whole Bible Belt submissive women bullshit). Adding that 70+% of cops are (probably under) self-Reporter domestic/child abusers and it gets ugly as all Dante's circles of Hell. Which is why visitation being separate from child support is used here, for the most part.

    Edit for terrible manners: thanks so much for a thoughtful, in-depth reply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Which is why visitation being separate from child support is used here, for the most part.

    Used and abused. Gotta love how we turn every shield into a weapon against those who need it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Most tools can harm or help. I hope after the collapse of this fake ivory tower built on a sloppily built and crumbling foundation, we can lay a solid foundation and build something designed to be a solid shelter where we can heal the wounds we've inflicted on ourselves and other nations.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    So now they can't vote as well cause of the voter id shit, disenfranchising more.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Except for billionaires obviously

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Manosphere meltdown incoming

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Poor people generally don't have passports.

  • source
  • [+] -78 points 6 months ago (23 children)

    I'm fine with this. Pay your fuckin child support

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [+] 111 points 6 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Most of the MAGA base don't have passports because they are isolationists filled with fear and can't imagine the terror of going on a trip somewhere that requires a passport. A passport being required to vote would disproportionately affect Republicans. Possibly by orders of magnitude.

    Don't take my word for it the data is there - WV and MS have less than 25% people holding passports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I said the same thing and got downvoted wtf?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (14 children)

    not having a passport is about to mean you can’t vote

    Less than half of Americans have passports, and the ones who do are probably less likely to vote for republicans, they're not going to require a US passport to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 37 points 6 months ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Many people with passports didn’t get the “RealID” because the Passport always usurped it.

    That's a really good point. I have a "RealID", which is just a way to say that I showed my passport at a DMV; but I also had to jump an extra hurdle to get that star.

    If you have a passport right now and don't have your license with a star, you should do so.

    I obviously carry my driver's license with me everywhere, but when doing things like air travel or interacting with federal processes, I bring my passport since, to me, the federal document supersedes the state document stating federal was checked.

    The dystopian scenario is that the federal side can revoke your document and, if you haven't already been validated, you no longer can validate your federal status; and that federal status can be required to vote or travel.

    "Your passport is no longer valid because of " + You need a RealID to vote now = people who can't vote because the government doesn't like them and can invent a reason to invalidate a passport.

    I'd say have both: If you don't have a passport, get one; if you don't have a star on your state driver's license or ID card, get one.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

    They won't do it because it would disenfranchise their own voters and enfranchise the opposition. Are you not American and confused the parties?

    Edit: who is downvoting this? Are there people who think the republicans are going to rig the game against themselves?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Oh yeah, because it's simply impossible for them to send ICE into blue states to "secure the elections"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Sending ICE to polling locations has nothing at all to do with requiring passports to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    You're trolling, right? I can't imagine why I'd have to explain this otherwise.

    Laws aren't magical spells that change reality. If Republicans introduce a law saying "you must have a passport to vote", people can still vote without a passport as long as nobody prevents them from doing so. Republicans can send ICE to polling stations in blue states to prevent people from voting without a passport.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    They don't need a law saying that to send ICE to blue states to stop people from voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    Of course they do if they don't want an open confrontation with the state's own forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    They already send ICE to do illegal things in states without open confrontation with the state's own forces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Ah yes, sorry, I forgot we're deliberately ignoring all nuance. So I agree: no matter from which perspective we look at it, there's literally zero reason for the politicians to show a stronger reaction towards completely losing their own power to the fascist regime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The subject is "will Trump require passports to vote", and the answer is "no, because his own constituents are the least likely to have passports."

    Everything else is just Qanon-style "yes and-" fantasizing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That's a dangerously complacent view to hold, imo. There's been a lot of "but that would never happen" happening lately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    The issue isn't that they wouldn't disenfranchise american citizens, that's been the game since 1776. The issue is that they wouldn't disenfranchise their own voters, the objective is to disenfranchise the opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    If you actually give a shit about child poverty, universalist aid programs are a way more efficient and effective way to address that problem, but if you're just looking for an excuse to punish people and helping kids is beside the point rock on I guess

  • source
  • parent