So now they can’t vote as well cause of the voter id shit, disenfranchising more.
Ding ding ding. These assholes ran the numbers.
President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996
Never forget how shitty Bill Clinton was.
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.
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.
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
Normalization of removing rights. They’re coming after political opponents next.
What do you mean “next?” Watch closely which party the parents they pick on belong to. 10:1 odds they’re disproportionately Democratic.
*Black.
Removed by mod
I live outside the US but can’t renew my passport because I’m trans. They started a while ago
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Not normalizing - I’m talking about only that a national government owns a passport.
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.” **
The Supreme Court can make up whatever bullshit they want. They just gutted the Voting Rights Act, why not this too?
Yeah that’s why it was important to vote Dem in 16 but here we are.
The law in question was passed in 1996.
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.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Nazi brain rot
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.
Freedom of travel is a 5th Amendment right inside the US only - you don’t have a right to move to France or Australia.
deleted by creator
I’m fine with this. Pay your fuckin child support
Until you realize that not having a passport is about to mean you can’t vote.
The trick is making you think they care about people not paying child support. They’ve had decades to put other consequences in place. Why didn’t they?
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.
ones who do are probably less likely to vote for republicans
You said the quiet part out loud. Now learn about the loud part. Many people with passports didn’t get the “RealID” because the Passport always usurped it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
Edit: also this kind of “well, they won’t do it” is literally how every other fascist state has come into being, so I hope you enjoy your ignorance while it lasts. No, I don’t care about being nice. Time to grow up and stop with the whataboutism.
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?
Oh yeah, because it’s simply impossible for them to send ICE into blue states to “secure the elections”
Sending ICE to polling locations has nothing at all to do with requiring passports to vote.
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.
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 <reason>” + 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.
That’s a dangerously complacent view to hold, imo. There’s been a lot of “but that would never happen” happening lately.
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.
Take a look at this list of percentage of adults with passports and tell me how the top 10 voted in 2024.
https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/SAVEact-tables.pdf
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.
I said the same thing and got downvoted wtf?
Welcome to the fediverse, it’s full of assholes.
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
Removed by mod
What if travel is needed for work to pay?
Imagine coming up with policies that actually help people rather than punish them. This is weird and sets such a dangerous precedent.
It’s weird because that’s basically the entire Republican voter base.
No no no, I thought he would only do this for other deadbeat dads
The Republican voter base typically doesn’t leave their home county let alone travel abroad.
Okay everyone, say it with me!
It’s because they’re black, isn’t it?!
It’s racist to say it’s black men that are targeted by this move, but the move itself is obviously racist because we all know the stereotype. All around bad.
I don’t like this at all and it’s wrong.
Also, fuck parents who don’t pay child support for their own kids.
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.
Didn’t expect to have my opinion changed on child support payments today. You make very excellent points. Thank you for providing me with a different perspective.
Sad I could help, but glad you got a new perspective out of it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
Manosphere meltdown incoming
Poor people generally don’t have passports.
