• JonsJava@lemmy.world
      shield
      M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.” **

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

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

      • homura1650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days 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.

    • edible_funk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Freedom of travel is a 5th Amendment right inside the US only - you don’t have a right to move to France or Australia.