Not commenting one way or the other, but here is what authorizes this:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)[0]
SEC. 370. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT.
(a) HHS Certification Procedure.—
(1) Secretarial responsibility.—Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652), as amended by section 345 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(k)(1) If the Secretary receives a certification by a State agency in accordance with the requirements of section 454(31) that an individual owes arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action (with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of passports) pursuant to paragraph (2).
“(2) The Secretary of State shall, upon certification by the Secretary transmitted under paragraph (1), refuse to issue a passport to such individual, and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to such individual.[1]
The above may have predated the amended copy, as a threshold of $2,500 seemed to be the case at least 3 years ago, for whatever that is worth.
I've been told that American's have a very low rate of passport issuance. I don't know if that's true, but the figure quoted was only 10% of adults hold passports. Is this a really effective way to get people to pay for their kids, or just the appearance of doing something to quiet the voters?
In 1990 it was only 5% of Americans and now it's 50%. In the UK it's 85% but a better comparison is probably France who are in the Schengen Area so only 60% have a passport.
If I lived in France I doubt I would travel outside of the Schengen Area.
About half of Americans traveling to/from Mexico by land at a small crossing i noticed didn't even have them (recently). Turns out Mexico doesn't legally require a passport for entry and the US has to take back citizens who appear without one. This won't do shit to stop escaping deadbeats, just another scheme to punish parents at a threshold so low it could be a single misreported tech worker payment while doing fuck all for the kids.
And people wonder why no one is having kids. It is punishment after punishment by a society who pretends to care about kids but does fuck all to help, only to rub it in your face and punish you when you are down.
> "All foreigners, regardless of their nationality, are required to present a valid and not expired passport or travel document when entering Mexico (traveling by air, land or sea)."
What you may have observed is Mexican border control at a small crossing may not enforce that requirement.
Article 11 [Mexican Constitution]
Every person has the right to enter and leave the country, to travel through its territory and to move house without the necessity of a letter of safe passage, passport, safe-conduct or any other similar requirement. In the event of criminal or civil liability, the exercise of this right shall be subject to the judicial authority. Relating to limitations imposed by the laws on immigration and public health, or in respect to undesirable aliens residing in the country, the exercise of this right shall be subject to the administrative authority.
Every person has the right to enter the country without a passport. There are ways for the authorities to get around it and fuck with people found in the interior without it (says subject to administrative authority for immigration, but they're explicitly constitutionally barred from requiring anything like a passport) , but ultimately it's unconstitutional to make a law requiring it. This trumps the aspirational hearsay provided by the consulate and explains why none of the consulate advice is able to cite where this supposed "requirement" comes from. The consulate either was mistaken or wrote that because it will really suck to leave the country without it and they don't want to deal with the fallout.
How many of those are second passports for the benefit of people who wish to visit Israel without the added friction that Israeli stamps in their primary passport would bring?
Also, EU citizens do not require a passport to travel within the EU; by law, their national ID card suffices, thus making passports unnecessary for much of their travel.
It's possible this might have a significant (not small, not necessarily large) impact on the smaller subset of delinquent parents that might currently have a larger double digit percentage (30% say) skipping to Canada, Mexico, or elsewhere to avoid being chased down.
Or not.
The main point here is that it's not the entire population of regular US citizens that should be looked at here, more the specific behaviour of the subset in question.
The constitution (article 11) of Mexico provides an explicit right of every person to enter Mexico without a passport (that doesn't mean every person in general -- you can be barred -- but not because you don't have a passport). You can witness this at land border crossings -- I routinely watch them let in foreigners without them (they're not following whatever uncited nonsense you read at the consulate wrongly claiming a passport is 'required' without citing any law). It is subject to immigration enforcement, but they're legally barred from requiring a passport. It won't do dick to stop delinquent people from leaving and anywhere that actually thoroughly checks passports also is a member of international child support enforcement treaties.
As an aside I've been in and out of Mexico a bunch of times (formerly entered, 5 or 6 times; crossed the border, literally a hundred+ times) - but as an Australian geophysical exploration surveyor on the job it's always been via other people dealing with all the paperwork.
Presumably it would be very effective for some demographics and not so effective for others. 10% is still a very large group of people. People who would be affected are also probably people who can afford international travel, so the affected are probably disporportionally the group who are failing to pay despite having a bunch of spare income.
As an american it is true that most people don’t have passports - the act of flying internationally is either out of reach economically or culturally. This does give mostly out of touch opression where the margins are the targets and the white dudes will likely get a pass, so the latter.
I've met a lot of people in the US who assume they cannot afford to fly anywhere, much less to another country, without having ever priced any part of it, they simply Knew from cultural osmosis they were not The Kind Of People Who Could Do That.
@gcr had the closest contact to the point I was alluding to. The world has been painted as this big scary place where there’s only violence and that can be identified from the type and behavior of people being sent here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_pet-eating_hoax)
I’m guessing that a lot of Americans are either fearful of or indifferent to the rest of the world. My broad estimate is that maybe half of us have been outside the country.
You're saying that Trump and company are trying to get the people of color who don't pay their child support to not leave the country. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can you explain it further?
I'm also curious why you think it is only targeting people of color and not people of white
- X doesn't pay child support because X lost their job.
- X gets their driver's license revoked because they missed child support payments.
So ... how are you supposed to find a new job with out a car in most U.S. communities? This doesn't improve the situation for anyone involved, but allows the state to make it much, much worse.
Whoever had the idea of revoking business and professional licenses of those behind on paying their kids were real geniuses. I can understand doing it after a contempt hearing where it was determined the person absolutely will not be using them to help the child.... but an administrative revocation for being delinquent is insane.
It's crazy how obsessed America is with kicking people in the teeth when they are down. Your kids are broke? Sorry, we won't help you, but how about we take away your ability to work domestically or abroad.
I don't have much of a problem with the $100K penalties.
I have a lot more issue with a $2.5K limit--that could be just one or two (intentionally or unintentionally) misreported payments. Or a paycheck hiccup. Or a layoff. Or a government error (because we all know how infallible DOGE was). Or a government shutdown. Or ...
We specifically decry the concepts of debtor's prisons and social credit in the US. For good reasons.
This is leaving aside the whole discussion about your passport being an identity document that isn't subject to control of a single US state government like your driver's license.
> I have a lot more issue with a $2.5K limit--that could be just one or two (intentionally or unintentionally) misreported payments. Or a paycheck hiccup. Or a layoff. Or a government error (because we all know how infallible DOGE was). Or a government shutdown. Or ...
In all of those situations, the child still has needs that need to be paid for.
Then those responsibilities should fall on the state. If we all give a shit that kids are going without then lets solve the issue instead of ringing out our pearls.
But it's a small sum of money for potentially a large screwup with potential permanent side effects, like losing a cross border job. Of course, cross border anything is less and less likely these days.
I accidentally read the comments on the post and got as far as this one:
“Honestly, since we're going towards socialism, we need to abolish child support. Women have the right to get an abortion because it is their body their choice. A man has to use his body …”
I mean that's just reductio ad absurdum to be haughtily oblique about the whole issue.
Social programs =/= socialism. There are plenty of capitalist economies with robust social safety nets - most EU countries provide free healthcare, education, and forms of UBI in the forms of grants for artists and social welfare for those incapable of working.
It's rather unfortunate that so many people are against genuine equality when it comes to reproductive rights.
While it makes perfect sense to me that a pregnant woman should have final (only?) say in whether or not she carries a child to term, it strikes me as rather off that:
* Outside of marriage, the biological father has no rights when it comes to participating in their child's life, whether we're talking custody or mere visitation.
* The father has no right to avoid child support despite having no say in either its birth or participation in their lives.
* Upon being targeted by the state for child support responsibilities, the court system virtually never allows cessation of payments upon a failed paternity test (i.e., paternity fraud). Note: roughly 30% of paternity tests that are performed reveal children are not biologically related to their presumed fathers.
* In about half the states, it's illegal to even perform a paternity test without consent of the mother.
I do find it fascinating that many people will use the very same blase "you should have thought of that before having sex" dismissals when bringing up any of the above issues as are used so often against women fighting for their right to abortion.
tl;dr: child support should be linked with visitation/custody rights. If a father abandons or is denied those rights, they should be absolved of child support, especially if it's proven they aren't actually the biological father.
They are probably referring to a study suggesting that Black and Hispanic families are more often suffering from non- or underpayment of child support (and from lesser amounts of support being ordered) than among White families [1]. That together with voter demographics going strongly for Democrat support among Black families [2] makes this at least a correlation supported by facts.
However, I think it is not causal because under- or nonpayment of child support is linked to financial difficulties and income disparities, which non-White people are experiencing at significantly higher rates.
Pew Research (2024) says: About six-in-ten voters with lower family incomes (58%) associate with the Democratic Party, compared with 36% who affiliate with the Republican Party.
Both can be true. Democrats tend to dominate the lowest income quintile, while Republicans tend to win the second and third quintiles. So if you're only looking at the bottom quintile, Democrats would win that cohort. If you combine the bottom three quintiles, Republicans would win it.
That doesn’t make sense either. Democrats won the popular vote of the $100k+ crowd in 2024.
And of course if can be both, I said this in a separate response that this isn’t a black and white conversation, which is why I responded to begin with to the responder.
It’s not threaded here but the responder made a comment about this affecting liberals more than anyone, to which I countered by saying statistically conservative states suffer more from poverty.
Fully aware it’s not as a black and white as this, but on surface they are just wrong to tie a political party to poverty when it affects everyone.
Think the original language is 1996 and Clinton. Or, more properly, I guess, Gingrich. I don't know all the details, saw that somewhere else and can't remember where.
Not commenting one way or the other, but here is what authorizes this:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)[0]
SEC. 370. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. (a) HHS Certification Procedure.— (1) Secretarial responsibility.—Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652), as amended by section 345 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: “(k)(1) If the Secretary receives a certification by a State agency in accordance with the requirements of section 454(31) that an individual owes arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action (with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of passports) pursuant to paragraph (2). “(2) The Secretary of State shall, upon certification by the Secretary transmitted under paragraph (1), refuse to issue a passport to such individual, and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to such individual.[1]
The above may have predated the amended copy, as a threshold of $2,500 seemed to be the case at least 3 years ago, for whatever that is worth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo...
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1793/uslm/COMPS-17...
Looks like China is just ahead of the curve where you can't buy a plane ticket or book a train if you owe debts.
And in Dubai you can't open your door!
I've been told that American's have a very low rate of passport issuance. I don't know if that's true, but the figure quoted was only 10% of adults hold passports. Is this a really effective way to get people to pay for their kids, or just the appearance of doing something to quiet the voters?
In 1990 it was only 5% of Americans and now it's 50%. In the UK it's 85% but a better comparison is probably France who are in the Schengen Area so only 60% have a passport.
If I lived in France I doubt I would travel outside of the Schengen Area.
About half of Americans traveling to/from Mexico by land at a small crossing i noticed didn't even have them (recently). Turns out Mexico doesn't legally require a passport for entry and the US has to take back citizens who appear without one. This won't do shit to stop escaping deadbeats, just another scheme to punish parents at a threshold so low it could be a single misreported tech worker payment while doing fuck all for the kids.
And people wonder why no one is having kids. It is punishment after punishment by a society who pretends to care about kids but does fuck all to help, only to rub it in your face and punish you when you are down.
> Turns out Mexico doesn't legally require a passport for entry
This isn't true. See e.g. https://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/washington/index.php/ligavisos/... :
> "All foreigners, regardless of their nationality, are required to present a valid and not expired passport or travel document when entering Mexico (traveling by air, land or sea)."
What you may have observed is Mexican border control at a small crossing may not enforce that requirement.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mexico_2015#s...
There’s about 180m us passports, so about half the country has one, about the same percentage as France.
How many of those are second passports for the benefit of people who wish to visit Israel without the added friction that Israeli stamps in their primary passport would bring?
Also, EU citizens do not require a passport to travel within the EU; by law, their national ID card suffices, thus making passports unnecessary for much of their travel.
Most Americans don’t generally visit Israel.
It’s generally very difficult to get a second passport.
As a tourist, I’ve noticed the countries most obsessed with Israel usually aren’t winning any “pleasant place to visit” awards.
In practice many still own passports, as they are considered as better proofs of identity when you travel.
Israel doesn't stamp your passport if you ask.
They haven’t stamped passports at TLV for about a decade. My last Israel in my “dirty” passport was at Erez coming out of Gaza.
Very few people have two passports nowadays.
It's possible this might have a significant (not small, not necessarily large) impact on the smaller subset of delinquent parents that might currently have a larger double digit percentage (30% say) skipping to Canada, Mexico, or elsewhere to avoid being chased down.
Or not.
The main point here is that it's not the entire population of regular US citizens that should be looked at here, more the specific behaviour of the subset in question.
The constitution (article 11) of Mexico provides an explicit right of every person to enter Mexico without a passport (that doesn't mean every person in general -- you can be barred -- but not because you don't have a passport). You can witness this at land border crossings -- I routinely watch them let in foreigners without them (they're not following whatever uncited nonsense you read at the consulate wrongly claiming a passport is 'required' without citing any law). It is subject to immigration enforcement, but they're legally barred from requiring a passport. It won't do dick to stop delinquent people from leaving and anywhere that actually thoroughly checks passports also is a member of international child support enforcement treaties.
Interesting, never knew that.
As an aside I've been in and out of Mexico a bunch of times (formerly entered, 5 or 6 times; crossed the border, literally a hundred+ times) - but as an Australian geophysical exploration surveyor on the job it's always been via other people dealing with all the paperwork.
Presumably it would be very effective for some demographics and not so effective for others. 10% is still a very large group of people. People who would be affected are also probably people who can afford international travel, so the affected are probably disporportionally the group who are failing to pay despite having a bunch of spare income.
As an american it is true that most people don’t have passports - the act of flying internationally is either out of reach economically or culturally. This does give mostly out of touch opression where the margins are the targets and the white dudes will likely get a pass, so the latter.
As an American, it is not true that most people don't have passports.
There are currently 180 million and change active issued passport to US citizens.
What does it mean "out of reach culturally"? Genuine question, I'm very curious about it.
I've met a lot of people in the US who assume they cannot afford to fly anywhere, much less to another country, without having ever priced any part of it, they simply Knew from cultural osmosis they were not The Kind Of People Who Could Do That.
I am assuming that's what they meant.
You’re strawmanning against a point that I called out explicitly as a distinct variable that should be considered on its own totality of circumstance.
@gcr had the closest contact to the point I was alluding to. The world has been painted as this big scary place where there’s only violence and that can be identified from the type and behavior of people being sent here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_pet-eating_hoax)
I’m guessing that a lot of Americans are either fearful of or indifferent to the rest of the world. My broad estimate is that maybe half of us have been outside the country.
The purpose of this isn't to twist people's arms to pay for their kids.
It's to punish poor, especially nonwhite, people and make it hard for them to escape the oppression of the Trump regime.
You're saying that Trump and company are trying to get the people of color who don't pay their child support to not leave the country. I'm not sure what the problem is. Can you explain it further?
I'm also curious why you think it is only targeting people of color and not people of white
If they leave the country voluntarily, then Trump & co can't put them in concentration camps.
And it's targeting poor people, who are disproportionately nonwhite.
This sounds worse for the kids themselves.
Child support is just the start. It won't be long before passports are revoked for a number of other reasons too.
Great, now do it with tax evaders.
Owing child support is a negative on children and society in general, but I'm sure there are plenty who will argue in favor of it.
I never understood this line of logic:
- X doesn't pay child support because X lost their job.
- X gets their driver's license revoked because they missed child support payments.
So ... how are you supposed to find a new job with out a car in most U.S. communities? This doesn't improve the situation for anyone involved, but allows the state to make it much, much worse.
Who said anything about revoking drivers licenses?
Every state it seems.
I found this link informative.
https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/license-restrictions-for...
Whoever had the idea of revoking business and professional licenses of those behind on paying their kids were real geniuses. I can understand doing it after a contempt hearing where it was determined the person absolutely will not be using them to help the child.... but an administrative revocation for being delinquent is insane.
It's crazy how obsessed America is with kicking people in the teeth when they are down. Your kids are broke? Sorry, we won't help you, but how about we take away your ability to work domestically or abroad.
California revoked license to those who dont pay child support. Many other states do it too.
[flagged]
I don't have much of a problem with the $100K penalties.
I have a lot more issue with a $2.5K limit--that could be just one or two (intentionally or unintentionally) misreported payments. Or a paycheck hiccup. Or a layoff. Or a government error (because we all know how infallible DOGE was). Or a government shutdown. Or ...
We specifically decry the concepts of debtor's prisons and social credit in the US. For good reasons.
This is leaving aside the whole discussion about your passport being an identity document that isn't subject to control of a single US state government like your driver's license.
> I have a lot more issue with a $2.5K limit--that could be just one or two (intentionally or unintentionally) misreported payments. Or a paycheck hiccup. Or a layoff. Or a government error (because we all know how infallible DOGE was). Or a government shutdown. Or ...
In all of those situations, the child still has needs that need to be paid for.
Then those responsibilities should fall on the state. If we all give a shit that kids are going without then lets solve the issue instead of ringing out our pearls.
But it's a small sum of money for potentially a large screwup with potential permanent side effects, like losing a cross border job. Of course, cross border anything is less and less likely these days.
Your right, let's jail the parent until they pay.
I accidentally read the comments on the post and got as far as this one:
“Honestly, since we're going towards socialism, we need to abolish child support. Women have the right to get an abortion because it is their body their choice. A man has to use his body …”
That was enough for me.
I mean that's just reductio ad absurdum to be haughtily oblique about the whole issue.
Social programs =/= socialism. There are plenty of capitalist economies with robust social safety nets - most EU countries provide free healthcare, education, and forms of UBI in the forms of grants for artists and social welfare for those incapable of working.
[flagged]
It's rather unfortunate that so many people are against genuine equality when it comes to reproductive rights.
While it makes perfect sense to me that a pregnant woman should have final (only?) say in whether or not she carries a child to term, it strikes me as rather off that:
* Outside of marriage, the biological father has no rights when it comes to participating in their child's life, whether we're talking custody or mere visitation.
* The father has no right to avoid child support despite having no say in either its birth or participation in their lives.
* Upon being targeted by the state for child support responsibilities, the court system virtually never allows cessation of payments upon a failed paternity test (i.e., paternity fraud). Note: roughly 30% of paternity tests that are performed reveal children are not biologically related to their presumed fathers.
* In about half the states, it's illegal to even perform a paternity test without consent of the mother.
I do find it fascinating that many people will use the very same blase "you should have thought of that before having sex" dismissals when bringing up any of the above issues as are used so often against women fighting for their right to abortion.
tl;dr: child support should be linked with visitation/custody rights. If a father abandons or is denied those rights, they should be absolved of child support, especially if it's proven they aren't actually the biological father.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Idk, but it may also be a ploy to disfranchise voters (if a passport is required to vote), as this hits Democrats voter potential harder.
That's really clever and may be the reason why the limit is so low.
Democrats tend to be deadbeat dads? What?
They are probably referring to a study suggesting that Black and Hispanic families are more often suffering from non- or underpayment of child support (and from lesser amounts of support being ordered) than among White families [1]. That together with voter demographics going strongly for Democrat support among Black families [2] makes this at least a correlation supported by facts.
However, I think it is not causal because under- or nonpayment of child support is linked to financial difficulties and income disparities, which non-White people are experiencing at significantly higher rates.
[1] https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CSRA-...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship...
Poverty is the underlying factor.
[flagged]
Pew Research (2024) says: About six-in-ten voters with lower family incomes (58%) associate with the Democratic Party, compared with 36% who affiliate with the Republican Party.
You should check the exit polls from 2024 if you want to go back that far then.
Republicans won the vote for the under $100k bracket.
Both can be true. Democrats tend to dominate the lowest income quintile, while Republicans tend to win the second and third quintiles. So if you're only looking at the bottom quintile, Democrats would win that cohort. If you combine the bottom three quintiles, Republicans would win it.
That doesn’t make sense either. Democrats won the popular vote of the $100k+ crowd in 2024.
And of course if can be both, I said this in a separate response that this isn’t a black and white conversation, which is why I responded to begin with to the responder.
What are you making an argument for or against?
It’s not threaded here but the responder made a comment about this affecting liberals more than anyone, to which I countered by saying statistically conservative states suffer more from poverty.
Fully aware it’s not as a black and white as this, but on surface they are just wrong to tie a political party to poverty when it affects everyone.
Think the original language is 1996 and Clinton. Or, more properly, I guess, Gingrich. I don't know all the details, saw that somewhere else and can't remember where.
[flagged]
[flagged]