Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[Jingthing]

I would never have kids, but I hold libertarian views on many issues. For example. prostitution should be legal. Marijuana should be legal. So why do we cheer when our government takes away our right to travel for any reason? Maybe this is a a good enough reason. What's next? The US government holds enough power over Americans, even expats, already. Recently under Bush we rushed like lemmings to relinquish some of our constitutional freedoms in the name of so called security. Stop cheering, its against your overall best interest.

The US government isn't interfering with anyone's right to travel here. The US government won't stop you in any way if you attempt to leave the US without a passport. Of course, other countries won't admit you without a US passport, but that isn't the US government interfering, that is foreign countries. A passport is property of the US government (not individual property); it says so right inside of it. Receiving one is a privilege, not a right.

Of course, you need a passport to board any flight.

You also now need a passport for Mexico and Canada, because you need one to return.

So denying a passport means you are a prisoner of the US borders.

I do understand the emotional reaction to wanting to get justice for children against deadbeat parents.

However, no, absolutely I do not consider the right to travel internationally a privilege. I consider it a birth right of all Americans. And to do so you need a passport. It is not a driver's license. That is a privilege and not a right. There is a huge difference. Aren't convicted felons also able to get passports? I think they are, as well they should be, as they are citizens. Restricting citizens from leaving their own country is something totalitarian states do. Now it is child support, what's next?

Of course no politician is going to have the cajones to defend this right against the hot button issue of punishing bad parents. However, I still think when you violate the basic freedom of any class of Americans, you continue to degrade the freedoms of all Americans. You can say they can fix the problem by paying the back support. Suppose they can't pay it? How about charging them under US law for that violation rather than showboating with their passport?

Edited August 22, 2007 by Jingthing

[ColPyat]

Of course no politician is going to have the cajones to defend this right against the hot button issue of punishing bad parents. However, I still think when you violate the basic freedom of any class of Americans, you continue to degrade the freedoms of all Americans.

What about the right of a child for care, if not personal, than at least financial from the man who used his freedom to bang the child's mother?

No freedom without responsibility. Personal responsibility. That is the basics of Libertarianism/Anarchism. And that is why it never works in the real world - you'll always have some who will abuse their freedoms on the cost of somebody else's rights.

Edited August 22, 2007 by ColPyat

[Jingthing]

Of course no politician is going to have the cajones to defend this right against the hot button issue of punishing bad parents. However, I still think when you violate the basic freedom of any class of Americans, you continue to degrade the freedoms of all Americans.

What about the right of a child for care, if not personal, than at least financial from the man who used his freedom to bang the child's mother?

No freedom without responsibility. Personal responsibility. That is the basics of Libertarianism/Anarchism. And that is why it never works in the real world - you'll always have some who will abuse their freedoms on the cost of somebody else's rights.

Because, simply, there are already laws on the books against not paying child support. Charge based on those laws. Leave people's basic constitutional rights alone. There is no rational connection between child support and the right to travel. It was said they already won't issue to people with taxes owed. Now child support. Slippery slope. get it?

Edited August 22, 2007 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

There's no use arguing with selective libertarianism. They seem to have no trouble with letting the government intrude to support the child so long as it doesn't intrude to stop the deadbeat parent from travelling/escaping.

[ColPyat]

Because, simply, there are already laws on the books against not paying child support. Charge based on those laws. Leave people's basic constitutional rights alone.

Yes. The problem though is that there are people escaping the issue by moving to foreign countries. No government is going for the long and difficult process of extradition for a relatively minor issue (in legal terms) as failure to pay child support.

It simply is a question of people escaping personal responsibility. If they have the money to travel but owing to the children - let them pay for their children first. Isn't that what every parent does?

Anyhow, i just had a quick read through the US constitution. I couldn't find a constitutional right to have a passport and travel the world. Could you point that particular article or amendment out to me, please?

[cdnvic]

You also now need a passport for Mexico and Canada, because you need one to return.

False.

No such regulation exists, and plans to impliment such regulations have been shelved for now.

[sbk]

Well, I guess I am shocked. Shocked that so many men vigorously defend the right of parents to not financially support their children. My parents were divorced when I was very young and my father fought for custody of his children because he loved them and wanted to raise them. And, foolishly, I guess, I just assumed that kind of personal responsibility was the norm. Seems I am wrong based on the views of many posters here.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

This could wipe out 50% of the farang expat population

some people just don't realize that too much C2H4OH is not a good basis for posting in TV-Forum.

it is a much used part of TV posting.

[Jingthing]

Its so funny that people can't make the intellectual leap to separate these totally different issues. Child support violators and the right of US citizens to travel. No wonder year after year we willingly surrender more freedoms.

Actually, it is correct that the right of travel is not spelled out in the constitution. However, the supreme court has consistently ruled that there is a right of travel:

The Right to Travel:

Many think that they have a basic right to travel where they want, when they want — but there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to travel. This was no oversight because the Articles of Confederation did list such a right. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution thought that the right to travel was so obvious that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Then again, perhaps not.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Supreme Court as follows (n Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)):

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

[Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958)]

"The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law’."

[schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 225 F.2d 938, at 941]

I haven't kept up with the timing of the change to require passports for Canada and Mexico, but this is going to happen. So that leaves no country an American can go without a passport, as soon as that planned for change happens.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Jingthing

[sbk]

Due Process:

"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

[ColPyat]

Its so funny that people can't make the intellectual leap to separate these totally different issues. Child support violators and the right of US citizens to travel. No wonder year after year we willingly surrender more freedoms.

Actually, it is correct that the right of travel is not spelled out in the constitution. However, the supreme court has consistently ruled that there is a right of travel:

So, good, we have established that there is no constitutional right to travel exists.

SBK has established that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Which basically spells out rather clearly that a person who owes money for child support is in violation of US law, and can therefore a passport can legally be withheld.

Hmm, so where is your case now?

Interesting argument of the judge. The same argumentation about US heritage could be used to argue for increased immigration as the US has traditionally been an immigrant country - but that heritage is in the US now not so important anymore.

Personally - i have at the moment sleepless nights (no kidding) because i feel my constitutional right from where i come from, of being able to live with my family, is infringed upon. We have just introduced a new legislation:

Foreign wifes of citizens of my country, if they want to move there with their husbands have to suddenly now pass a language test before getting the cohabitation visa issued. This test may sound simple for some, but for people like my wife of 14 years - it is almost impossible to pass. Which basically means, that if i want to move back to my country of origin - i would have to leave my family. Which won't happen, and that means that possibly i can never live in my country of origin again.

So, excuse me my complete lack of compassion for some lowlife bastards who don't give a toss about their children, while i struggle with the nightmare scenario of maybe never being able to life in my country of birth, or having my family pulled apart should i not be getting my work permit renewed here in Thailand, or would have to leave for some other reason.

[philliphn]

This is great news

Don't think much of the guys who have abandoned their parental duties to come play in Thailand. Think even less of the ones who are being deadbeats on top of that.

Good on the US for introducing a regulation that makes sense.

Lets hope more countries follow.

I think this Passport law is a good thing. If you produce children you have a life time responsability to them. It doesn't matter if your X is a bitch. They are still your children. Finally a law that makes sense!

[Pepe']

You also now need a passport for Mexico and Canada, because you need one to return.

False.

No such regulation exists, and plans to impliment such regulations have been shelved for now.

-------------------------

Correct. I drive into Mexico frequently. All that is needed for return trip is a drivers license.

Passport is needed if entering Mexico by air.

Rumor is passport will be needed at the border in 2009.

Unofficial word from border patrol is passport ID is indefinitely on hold.

[bendix]

It's rather disturbing that in a thread about two subjects - a father's duty to take care of his children and the US government's plan to withhold passports to those who breach that duty - that most of the discussion has been on the latter.

Still, thinking about it, I suppose I'm not really that surprised . . .

[mrtoad]

I have a solution for those who are complaining about the way the mothers are spending the money. Go home and be there for your children. Take care of them, fight for your share of custody. There are millions of perfectly happy kids that don't live on a lot of money. They don't need money so much as they need their parents. It's inexcusable the amount of "men" who think that by sending money to some woman who is assuming 100% of the parenting responsibilities that they are doing their share of parenting.

As far as I'm concerned if you are on a barstool in Phuket, Pattaya, Korat, or wherever everytime your kid is sick, or comes home with their first date, or scores their first goal, you're just as much a deadbeat as the one who never sends the checks.

Spoken like a person who has never been in the situation.

Sorry, I just can't agree with what you say at all, but then I'm not going to explain my personal circumstances to you.

One day maybe you can explain it to your kids.

Yep, I certainly will, pious one.

No, real difference living here or 300 miles away, but then peoples circumstances change hence the reason why I am here and not back in the UK. BUt, even then I was still living 300 miles away as my - ex moved away. Not really my fault, but totally out of my control, and you feel that you have the right to bash it. Pathetic.

[cdnvic]

No, real difference living here or 300 miles away, but then peoples circumstances change hence the reason why I am here and not back in the UK. BUt, even then I was still living 300 miles away as my - ex moved away. Not really my fault, but totally out of my control, and you feel that you have the right to bash it. Pathetic.

So couldn't move the 300 miles to be closer to the children who now really have no father to speak of but you found you were able to move 10,000 miles away to Thailand.

And you call me pathetic?

I'd rather be pious any day than have some kid wondering why I chose to abandon them.

Edited August 23, 2007 by cdnvic

[mrtoad]

No, real difference living here or 300 miles away, but then peoples circumstances change hence the reason why I am here and not back in the UK. BUt, even then I was still living 300 miles away as my - ex moved away. Not really my fault, but totally out of my control, and you feel that you have the right to bash it. Pathetic.

So couldn't move the 300 miles to be closer to the children who now really have no father to speak of but you found you were able to move 10,000 miles away to Thailand.

And you call me pathetic?

I'd rather be pious any day than have some kid wondering why I chose to abandon them.

I am certainly not going to get into a war of words with you Vic, but I just take a little bit of an exception that you class parents who emigrate to be deadbeats. I certainly have not abandond my children from my previous marraige, nor have in fact absolved myself from any other responsibilties of being a parent. Maybe, my initial reply was a little crassly worded, but I would just like to try and stick up for some of us half decent fathers who are living away from thier kids. As i said, without spreading my personal life all over TV, which I am not ging to do, you will just have to take my word for. Just, be a little bit more careful about this particular issue before you start making sweeping statements about.

hel_l, do you seriously think that that I envisaged not living with them when we first had ur children? I'm sorry, this can be a pretty emotive area and I am certainly not a perfect human being, but I love my kids, they still love me, and they also know that I did not abandon them.

Anyway, that is hpefully my last post on this thread, as it is now going seriusly ff topic from the original title, and sliding into an area were it could just become s flaming war.

If you take exception to the above answear please feel free to PM me.

[simon43]

Issues over child support are not always that clear-cut. My ex receives up to 200,000 baht a month in child support from me. But she also gets an income from my father's estate AND my mother's estate AND her mother's estate. The result is that she is richer than all of my family and has absolutely no incentive to work......

Oh - she also got an 800,000 pound house in the divorce settlement whilst I was left with the debts from our failed UK business.

Simon

[joeuk1]

Issues over child support are not always that clear-cut. My ex receives up to 200,000 baht a month in child support from me. But she also gets an income from my father's estate AND my mother's estate AND her mother's estate. The result is that she is richer than all of my family and has absolutely no incentive to work......

Oh - she also got an 800,000 pound house in the divorce settlement whilst I was left with the debts from our failed UK business.

Simon

I can not understand these figures .

I had a clean break settlement uk split house sale and all money/assets 50/50 and maintained the kids untill the last one was 18 .

With clean break settlement IF i went earned a mllion pounds after the clean break split then that would be mine , we signed a contract with lawers to say exactly that . If things are as bad as what you have posted above then you did not do your homework and you also had a crap lawer taking care of you .

JB

[khunandy]

I have a solution for those who are complaining about the way the mothers are spending the money. Go home and be there for your children. Take care of them, fight for your share of custody. There are millions of perfectly happy kids that don't live on a lot of money. They don't need money so much as they need their parents. It's inexcusable the amount of "men" who think that by sending money to some woman who is assuming 100% of the parenting responsibilities that they are doing their share of parenting.

As far as I'm concerned if you are on a barstool in Phuket, Pattaya, Korat, or wherever everytime your kid is sick, or comes home with their first date, or scores their first goal, you're just as much a deadbeat as the one who never sends the checks.

Come on, get real. Did that for 12 years and finally escaped when the obligation was over. Why do you assume that we are all on a bar stool dodging responsibilites. Glad I am not dealing with you in a custody battle.

[ProThaiExpat]

The response by almost all of the posters to OPs biased and unsubstantiated conclusions were clearly right on and speaks volumes toward the issue that most expats are not in the category of deadbeat dads.

It may well be that in the past, it was a lot easier to avoid your parental responsibilities than it is now. Who would ever make a car payment, if repossession was not a reality.

[a2396]

I am fortunate I don't have to personally deal with such an issue, since I never had any children. However, I was an issue of child support (in the old days) between my parents, who divorced when I was less than 2 yrs. My Mother had to haul my Father to court several times, to get him to pay the minimum of support until I was 18. After that, he never paid a "red cent" for anything and remains, to this day, one of the most cheap skate, self-centered SOB's I have ever met and I am his only child.

As for tagging the issue of unpaid child support to the issuance of a passport, I think it is a question of where do you draw the line. What about unpaid parking tickets or other unpaid debt? The list could go on and on. It should be up to the appropriate authorities in the person's state of residence to "bird dog" them to pay the money. If they don't pay, often they get arrested. The whole matter is a "sticky can of worms" and a better process needs to be devised, where all parties are protected and treated fairly.

[siamamerican]

Because, simply, there are already laws on the books against not paying child support. Charge based on those laws. Leave people's basic constitutional rights alone.

Yes. The problem though is that there are people escaping the issue by moving to foreign countries. No government is going for the long and difficult process of extradition for a relatively minor issue (in legal terms) as failure to pay child support.

It simply is a question of people escaping personal responsibility. If they have the money to travel but owing to the children - let them pay for their children first. Isn't that what every parent does?

Anyhow, i just had a quick read through the US constitution. I couldn't find a constitutional right to have a passport and travel the world. Could you point that particular article or amendment out to me, please?

I have no issue with deadbeats not being given passports. I think it is commendable and anticipate other countries will follow with their own restrictions. I'm sure someone will sue the Dept of State, but hopefully will lose.

The basis of the suit will be that a basic liberty has been taken away which is protected by the 5th amendment. The constitution grants the right of freedom of movement and the 5th amendment stipulates that it can't be taken away without due process. In my opinion (not a LAWYER), deadbeats got their day in court and it is reasonable to restrict the right to travel.

[tettyan]

Its so funny that people can't make the intellectual leap to separate these totally different issues. Child support violators and the right of US citizens to travel. No wonder year after year we willingly surrender more freedoms.

Actually, it is correct that the right of travel is not spelled out in the constitution. However, the supreme court has consistently ruled that there is a right of travel:

The Right to Travel:

Many think that they have a basic right to travel where they want, when they want — but there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to travel. This was no oversight because the Articles of Confederation did list such a right. Several Supreme Court cases have ruled that this basic right exists and that the state can’t interfere with travel. Perhaps the authors of the Constitution thought that the right to travel was so obvious that it didn’t need to be mentioned. Then again, perhaps not.[/i]

Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Supreme Court as follows (n Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)):

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

[Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958)]

"The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law’."

[schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 225 F.2d 938, at 941]

I haven't kept up with the timing of the change to require passports for Canada and Mexico, but this is going to happen. So that leaves no country an American can go without a passport, as soon as that planned for change happens.

I'm sorry, I know this post is a bit old, but I can't resist commenting on the irony of your quoting Justice Douglas to support your position. The same Justice Douglas who was effectively bankrupted by his successive divorce settlements with his THREE WIVES. Not saying that makes him less credible, or a bad person, but just ironic given this thread's topic.

With regard to the substance, I'm actually not a personal fan of Justice Douglas's jurisprudence in many different areas (without regard to his chaoitic personal life), but that's a conversation that's beyond the scope of this board.

Edited August 23, 2007 by tettyan

[Jingthing]

To be clear, I also have no sympathy for deadbat Dads and Moms. Throw the book at them. Sure.

But I don't see the issue of freedom of travel for which you need a passport, as related one iota. I agree with the supreme court's history that suggests they believe that the right of Americans to travel is protected by the constitution even though it is not explicitly spelled out. That is what the supreme court does, interprets the constitution.

There was a case where a communist was banned from travel because he was a communist. The supreme court ruled that such restrictions are against the basic tenets of American principles. I agree. I think we would all agree. Yes, I am a proud supporter of the ACLU. Freedom means freedom for EVERYONE, even people you despise. Actually, I don't think even the ACLU would touch this issue, so its my opinion only.

Today deadbeat parents have their travel restricted. We are OK with it. This opens the door for more restrictions against other groups of unpopular people. Restricting travel is something totalitarian countries do. The greater good is protecting basic freedoms.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[farang prince]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/passports_child_support

WASHINGTON - The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for a U.S. businessman now living in China; $46,000 for a musician seeking to perform overseas, and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation. The new passport requirements that have complicated travel this summer also have uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions. The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.

Now that millions of additional travelers need passports to fly back from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and South America, collections under the Passport Denial Program are on pace to about double this year, federal officials told The Associated Press.

In all, states have reported collecting at least $22.5 million through the program thus far in 2007. The money is then forwarded to the parent to whom it is owed.

Some people never learn.

A boxer paid $39,000 in back child support to the state of Nevada last year to get a passport, which he lost. This year, his promoter had to loan him $8,930 so he could pay off his new child support debts and get a new passport to fight overseas.

In one case last year, a man got his parents to pay his overdue child support — $50,498 to the state of Illinois.

"For us, it's been amazing to see how people who owe back child support seem to be able to come up with good chunks of money when it involves needing their passport," said Adolfo Capestany, spokesman for the state of Washington's Division of Child Support. "Folks will do anything to get that passport, so it is a good collection tool."

The $22.5 million reported to have been collected through the program this year is a conservative estimate. Some states voluntarily report the payments to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, but other states don't.

It took all of 2006 to collect the same amount under the program, which began in 1998.

Also contributing to the increased collections was a drop in the threshold for reporting child support debts to the State Department, from $5,000 to $2,500. As a result, 400,000 more cases were submitted to the department.

The state of Washington obtained $24,000 for Teresa Markley through the program. The money accrued over a couple of decades. She said she could have really used the money in past years, and at one point in the 1990s went on welfare for a few months to make ends meet. While her children are now grown, she said the payment still meant a great deal to her.

"What it means to me now is just to have some validation for the suffering I went through," said Markley, a resident of Tacoma, Wash.

Jeannette Dean of Seattle said she had to tap into her retirement savings and her son's savings bond to help pay for basic necessities after Washington state was unable to help her collect delinquent child support payments.

But this year, she received about $36,000 through the passport program. She said the money will be used to replenish the lost savings.

"It has given back to having a normal life versus struggling to pay dental bills and hospitals bills and things like that," Dean said.

The passport denial program is just one of several tools the government has to collect overdue child support. Overall collections totaled about $24 billion last year.

The largest share by far — $20.1 billion — came from withholding from a worker's paycheck. Unemployment insurance or state and federal income tax refunds can also be seized. States with lotteries also can deduct delinquent payments from winnings. Some states submit the names of those behind on their payments to credit reporting agencies.

Payments generated through the new passport requirements are an important sliver of what states collect each year on behalf of about 17 million children, said Margot Bean, commissioner for the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

"We often get payments of over $100,000," Bean said. "For whatever reason, this was the only way we could get the money."

For some families, the payments can mean the difference between having to rely on the government for assistance or not relying on it, Bean said. In cases where families have needed cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, a portion of the payments received through the passport program is used to reimburse the government.

Another jump in collections from the Passport Denial Program can be expected next year or in early 2009. That's when the new passport requirements will likely take effect for land and sea travelers too.

---

Looks the feminists have gained complete control of the USA government afterall. You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes. Its amazing how much power the women have in the USA.

How many farang will have to leave thailand? This could wipe out 50% of the farang expat population.

How does this affect the job market and the real estate market. For investors, how are you planning to take advantage of this?

Is this just wishful thinking Bkkspore? It certainly isn't based on fact. As has been stated elsewhere, Americans don't represent 50% of the farang expat population in Thailand. Not even close. But beyond that, only a very few of American expats are deadbeat dads. If you take a look at the story, it only talks about some of the extreme cases. I know quite a few American expats in LOS and none of us are deadbeat dads.

Your "breathless" post suggests you are a quintessential drama queen. "It's amazing how much power the women have in the USA." Really? Been there? I don't think so. Women around the world are always trying to get a good grip on the balls of the men they are with. And at the same time, the men are trying to twist and turn to avoid being caught in a vise grip. Been going on for centuries. Where have you been?

Lastly, how will it affect the job and real estate markets? Ah, now we come to the real purpose of your OP. You are hungry for money at some poor bastard's expense. Greedy man.

Edited August 23, 2007 by farang prince

[siamamerican]

To be clear, I also have no sympathy for deadbat Dads and Moms. Throw the book at them. Sure.

But I don't see the issue of freedom of travel for which you need a passport, as related one iota. I agree with the supreme court's history that suggests they believe that the right of Americans to travel is protected by the constitution even though it is not explicitly spelled out. That is what the supreme court does, interprets the constitution.

There was a case where a communist was banned from travel because he was a communist. The supreme court ruled that such restrictions are against the basic tenets of American principles. I agree. I think we would all agree. Yes, I am a proud supporter of the ACLU. Freedom means freedom for EVERYONE, even people you despise. Actually, I don't think even the ACLU would touch this issue, so its my opinion only.

Today deadbeat parents have their travel restricted. We are OK with it. This opens the door for more restrictions against other groups of unpopular people.

I agree - it's difficult to determine what is reasonable. Restricting deadbeats ability to travel seems fair on the surface, but I'm not a deadbeat Dad.

The same applies to the right to bear arms. It seems like common sense to restrict certain types of firearms, but inevitably that will lead to further restrictions. I don't own any firearms and would feel safer if citizens didn't have the right to own them. In the end, the constitution protects the rights of gun owners and I've accepted that reality.

If I can accept gang bangers owning guns, I guess I might be able to accept deadbeat globetrotters.

[a2396]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/passports_child_support

WASHINGTON - The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for a U.S. businessman now living in China; $46,000 for a musician seeking to perform overseas, and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation. The new passport requirements that have complicated travel this summer also have uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions. The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.

Now that millions of additional travelers need passports to fly back from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and South America, collections under the Passport Denial Program are on pace to about double this year, federal officials told The Associated Press.

In all, states have reported collecting at least $22.5 million through the program thus far in 2007. The money is then forwarded to the parent to whom it is owed.

Some people never learn.

A boxer paid $39,000 in back child support to the state of Nevada last year to get a passport, which he lost. This year, his promoter had to loan him $8,930 so he could pay off his new child support debts and get a new passport to fight overseas.

In one case last year, a man got his parents to pay his overdue child support — $50,498 to the state of Illinois.

"For us, it's been amazing to see how people who owe back child support seem to be able to come up with good chunks of money when it involves needing their passport," said Adolfo Capestany, spokesman for the state of Washington's Division of Child Support. "Folks will do anything to get that passport, so it is a good collection tool."

The $22.5 million reported to have been collected through the program this year is a conservative estimate. Some states voluntarily report the payments to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, but other states don't.

It took all of 2006 to collect the same amount under the program, which began in 1998.

Also contributing to the increased collections was a drop in the threshold for reporting child support debts to the State Department, from $5,000 to $2,500. As a result, 400,000 more cases were submitted to the department.

The state of Washington obtained $24,000 for Teresa Markley through the program. The money accrued over a couple of decades. She said she could have really used the money in past years, and at one point in the 1990s went on welfare for a few months to make ends meet. While her children are now grown, she said the payment still meant a great deal to her.

"What it means to me now is just to have some validation for the suffering I went through," said Markley, a resident of Tacoma, Wash.

Jeannette Dean of Seattle said she had to tap into her retirement savings and her son's savings bond to help pay for basic necessities after Washington state was unable to help her collect delinquent child support payments.

But this year, she received about $36,000 through the passport program. She said the money will be used to replenish the lost savings.

"It has given back to having a normal life versus struggling to pay dental bills and hospitals bills and things like that," Dean said.

The passport denial program is just one of several tools the government has to collect overdue child support. Overall collections totaled about $24 billion last year.

The largest share by far — $20.1 billion — came from withholding from a worker's paycheck. Unemployment insurance or state and federal income tax refunds can also be seized. States with lotteries also can deduct delinquent payments from winnings. Some states submit the names of those behind on their payments to credit reporting agencies.

Payments generated through the new passport requirements are an important sliver of what states collect each year on behalf of about 17 million children, said Margot Bean, commissioner for the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

"We often get payments of over $100,000," Bean said. "For whatever reason, this was the only way we could get the money."

For some families, the payments can mean the difference between having to rely on the government for assistance or not relying on it, Bean said. In cases where families have needed cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, a portion of the payments received through the passport program is used to reimburse the government.

Another jump in collections from the Passport Denial Program can be expected next year or in early 2009. That's when the new passport requirements will likely take effect for land and sea travelers too.

---

Looks the feminists have gained complete control of the USA government afterall. You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes. Its amazing how much power the women have in the USA.

How many farang will have to leave thailand? This could wipe out 50% of the farang expat population.

How does this affect the job market and the real estate market. For investors, how are you planning to take advantage of this?

Is this just wishful thinking Bkkspore? It certainly isn't based on fact. As has been stated elsewhere, Americans don't represent 50% of the farang expat population in Thailand. Not even close. But beyond that, only a very few of American expats are deadbeat dads. If you take a look at the story, it only talks about some of the extreme cases. I know quite a few American expats in LOS and none of us are deadbeat dads.

Your "breathless" post suggests you are a quintessential drama queen. "It's amazing how much power the women have in the USA." Really? Been there? I don't think so. Women around the world are always trying to get a good grip on the balls of the men they are with. And at the same time, the men are trying to twist and turn to avoid being caught in a vise grip. Been going on for centuries. Where have you been?

Lastly, how will it affect the job and real estate markets? Ah, now we come to the real purpose of your OP. You are hungry for money at some poor bastard's expense. Greedy man.

Cut the poor guy a little slack. He may be exaggerating a bit, but it's an issue worthy of discussion. Women no power in USA? How about affirmative action programs in hiring and granting of contracts favoring WOMEN & minorities, etc, etc for the past 20 years or more. If you are some poor chump white boy Anglo, you can get in line behind them at the employment office. This has not been going on for centuries.

[cdnvic]

Cut the poor guy a little slack. He may be exaggerating a bit, but it's an issue worthy of discussion. Women no power in USA? How about affirmative action programs in hiring and granting of contracts favoring WOMEN & minorities, etc, etc for the past 20 years or more. If you are some poor chump white boy Anglo, you can get in line behind them at the employment office. This has not been going on for centuries.

None of this has anything to do with your obligations.

The issue of support is between you and your kids, not you and your ex.

[digitele]

I am an American. Wife and I were renewing our US passports recently in Bangkok.

There was a guy there (at the US Embassy) and he was there to pick up his renewed passport as well.

There was an issue and he was not a happy camper. I heard them mention "Back Child support"

We didn't hang around to listen, we picked ours up, signed and left.

I am curious to see how the procedure will work in real time? "Sorry Sir, Blah, Blah, No passport."

Then what? You are already overseas. They refuse to renew, Then what?

Should be some interesting posts about people in this situation.

Real men never turn their back on their children.