this post was submitted on 08 May 2026

231 points (98.7% liked)

Progressive Politics

5072 readers

356 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

231

[In an attempt to disenfranchise voters] US will start revoking passports for thousands of parents who owe child support, AP learns (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by CubitOom@infosec.pub to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The revocation program, plans for which were first reported by the AP in February, soon will be greatly expanded to cover parents who owe more than $2,500 in unpaid child support — the threshold set by a little-enforced 1996 law, the State Department said.

all 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] absolutetupperware@lemmy.today 78 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My question is, how does this get child support to the kid? I guess the parent can’t flee abroad but is that an inherent risk of parents owning 2500 bucks? This isn’t a solution to the problem at hand

[–] Red_October@piefed.world 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't. This does nothing to get people to pay their child support, and the people who can't afford to pay it aren't in any position to flee the country. This law isn't about getting them to pay child support, it's about stripping rights from the kind of people who can't or don't.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago

Unitedstatesians tend to have a hard-on for punitive policies. That’s it. That’s the story.

[–] suxen_tsihcrana@anarchist.nexus 3 points 5 months ago

I'm wondering what proportion of people who owe that much even have a passport to begin with. I, too, am scratching my head at the idea of tying these two seemingly disparate things together

[–] TheOctonaut@piefed.zip 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The majority of Americans don't have passports, what has a passport got to do with it?

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They're trying to require people to prove citizenship in order to vote. If this policy happens and that requirement becomes the law of the land, Boom, poor people poll tax. If you only think of each thing that's happening as an island that can't change anything else, you're going to miss the forest for the trees.

[–] TheOctonaut@piefed.zip 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This only makes sense if a more significant portion of the people they want to disenfranchise only have passports than the people they want to favour.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Consider the idiots in charge and it becomes more comprehensible.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As a European this sounds weird.
Everyone needs to take their ID when we vote.
We have to take the letter they send to you personally too.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Yeah, and here in the US we don't have a national ID (cause "muh freedum"), so it's the government's job to prove you don't have the right to vote. You show up at your polling place, you either are already registered and just need to give your name and they confirm some stuff and then you go vote. Some states (like mine) have same day registration, so you bring some verifiable mail (like a bill) that proves where you live and then you can vote with a provisional ballet (which will get tossed if you attempted to vote illegally) and that's it. Don't need an ID for any of that. The punishments for voter fraud are very high, so the risk-reward for falsely presenting yourself as someone else to vote basically doesn't happen, and when it does the person is usually caught.

US politicians act like voter ID is just common sense, but it is effectively an unnecessary barrier to voting since all of the info the ID would give, the government already has and uses to verify who you are.

If we had a national ID that was freely available to all, absolutely agreed that it would make sense, but we don't got that. We couldn't even get that in response to 9/11, so it'll never happen.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 5 points 5 months ago

They only care when they can use it as a bludgeon against the general public. See also: the push for "age checks" on the internet. In this case, they are criminalizing poverty.

The bullshit becomes obvious when we start talking about things like "school lunch debt."

[–] Fontasia@feddit.nl 35 points 5 months ago

This week in "surely we can make this only affect black people"

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 13 points 5 months ago

Government: don't reproduce of you can't afford it.

Also government: why aren't people reproducing?

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wonder how long it'll take for them to use this precedence to revoke my trans passport while I'm living out of country

[–] Krankenwagen@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Didn't they already say it has to match your sex assigned at birth? Sounds like next time you go to renew it.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

They did but they aren't revoking current ones last I checked. My concern is they obviously want to revoke existing ones not just when I would have to renew it. If they do that and invalidate my current passport while I'm living out of country I will be immediately requesting asylum

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Thanks for making me even happier that I don't have kids.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 2 points 5 months ago

So this is one of the levers they are using to remove non-GOP loyalists, assuming they get their citizenship identification requirements.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

This is fine. They're going to be almost all MAGA.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They have been doing that here for decades. It is certainly not a "little -enforced" law.

It's to keep deadbeat parents from disappearing to another country and makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is that they will also revoke the drivers license. Which then makes it even less likely the parent will be able to make the child support.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The article states that this is currently done for people with $100,000 worth of payments, however they plan to make it so identification which might be required for voting according to PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS executive order will also be taken away if payments totaling $2,500 are missed.

I imagine that it is possible to have a clerical error and miss a single payment and have one's idenfication stolen by the regime.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Here, when my ex got 2 months behind, the FLSDU sent me a letter saying they contacted the state department (of the US) to let them know he (the ex) was not allowed to travel out of the country. So I guess that is different from revoking a passport (he didn't and doesn't have one). That would have been like $600 in arrears. I don't think deadbeat parents should be able to leave the country,

The drivers license thing I still think worse and so counterproductive, like WTF. I would never want him to lose that even if deadbeat, too many jobs here require a car.

Not voting SUCKS and voting is a civil right that needs to be protected, you cannot be forced to use a passport as ID when fewer than half of the adults in the US have a passport, that is crazy, it won't stand.

Being unable to get a job so you get even further in arrears and can't support yourself either, is worse.

[+] MyPornViewingAccount@lemmy.world -9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Explain how this is voter disenfranchisement?

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the logic is based on the SAVE Act: if it passes, you effectively need a passport to vote.

But it has not yet passed.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You need a passport to vote?

[–] Watermark710@piefed.social 4 points 5 months ago

You seem to have misunderstood their comment.

if it passes, you effectively need a passport to vote.

But it has not yet passed.

I've added emphasis to make things clear.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Even though an executive order is not a law, the regime has been acting like it is.

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

Any in-person vote without a valid ID (passport is one of the few considered enough) will be challenged. Not to mention the challanges to mail in ballots.

States do control their elections, but plenty of regime friendly states will just let the regime control it. Allowing the regime to make challanges in key areas easier.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

And crucially, elections are already close -- even more so because of the electoral college. So most likely, the regime has already secured wins in the midterms, because those have to happen until those people notice that they can't vote anymore.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

36 states require identification to vote. A passport is ID. Maybe a very small percentage of passport holders don't have a second ID but for those that only have the one is being behind on child support a sufficient reason to take away someone's vote?

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

36 states require identification to vote. A passport is ID.

Gonna stop everyone right here and mention that ID requirements were not the norm until recently. It is, and always was, possible to prove citizenship without issuance of an ID (let alone a photo ID). Studies have shown that it does very little to reduce voter fraud and only disenfranchises vulnerable populations.

Secondly, elections are the purview of the states. Any requirements that give feds control of the voting process are unconstitutional. A federal passport is US property issued at the discretion of the government and can be revoked at any time (as shown in this article), and is therefore unconstitutional.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Of course not. Taking away the vote of a US citizen (with very, very specific exceptions) is unconstitutional. We only got here because of years of getting away with unconstitutional shit. It won't change while the criminals are in charge.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Well, gestures at fucking everything.