A passport isn’t a right by any stretch of the imagination. Even immigration attorneys would laugh you out of the room for suggesting that. Like it or not, passports are property of the government of the country that issues them. That is the global standard, and every single country plays it like that.
If some Trustafarian idiot goes to Costa Rica and spends all their money smoking weed and shows up at the embassy asking to be sent home, their passport gets held once they get back until they pay back the plane ticket. Which is perfectly legal and been how it has worked for decades.
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
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.
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.
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
"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.” **
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.
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.
Normalization of removing rights. They’re coming after political opponents next.
I live outside the US but can’t renew my passport because I’m trans. They started a while ago
What do you mean “next?” Watch closely which party the parents they pick on belong to. 10:1 odds they’re disproportionately Democratic.
*Black.
A passport isn’t a right by any stretch of the imagination. Even immigration attorneys would laugh you out of the room for suggesting that. Like it or not, passports are property of the government of the country that issues them. That is the global standard, and every single country plays it like that.
If some Trustafarian idiot goes to Costa Rica and spends all their money smoking weed and shows up at the embassy asking to be sent home, their passport gets held once they get back until they pay back the plane ticket. Which is perfectly legal and been how it has worked for decades.
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.
https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research/155/
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.
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.
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.” **
I did not get through the entire opinion, but don’t think it says what you think it says.
The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.
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.
Hey genius. Fuck Boarders.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Nazi brain rot
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.
Removed by mod