Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[wolfmanjack]

ok,well, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet but I see at least two very important sides.

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

*I ask this question because you talk about rights and justice, but that includes everyone, not just your individual rights. Civil rights are also about what you cannot do if it impinges on the rights, safety and liberty of others.

Personally I think the main point about the law here is that in the USA the divorce and child support laws are governed by the states. Every state has their own laws pertaining to these cases. The passport is issued by the USA Federal Government and the Federal Government should not be involved in enforcing State Laws.

ok, yes that's a good point, and a technical one. There are plenty of cases where federal law will supercede states, and federal agents get involved. If a deadbeat dad skips the Country, he effectively nulls the position of states in terms of enforcement.

Actually all Federal Laws supersede state laws. This means that no state has the authority to make something legal that the Federal gov says is illegal. Also state law can not make something illegal that the Federal law specifically says is legal. Neither of these is the case here. What is happening is that the Federal Gov is helping to enforce State laws. If they want to do this then they need to make federal laws governing child support and move the child custody issue into federal court.

In my home state they still have what is called a "justice of the peace". They do not have to be lawyers or have any kind of higher education. Any one can get elected as a JP. The real judges aren't much better. Let the Federal Judges make the decisions that are so important as the welfare of a child.

Edited August 24, 2007 by wolfmanjack

[bendix]

Look, can't we all just agree on one basic principle which overrides this whole thread?

And that is this. All Americans - and the governments that they choose - are just a little bit .. . . ummm, how do I put this nicely . . . . . nuts?

[Jingthing]

Look, can't we all just agree on one basic principle which overrides this whole thread?

And that is this. All Americans - and the governments that they choose - are just a little bit .. . . ummm, how do I put this nicely . . . . . nuts?

Why bother posting the obvious?

[Ulysses G.]

Look, can't we all just agree on one basic principle which overrides this whole thread?

And that is this. All Americans - and the governments that they choose - are just a little bit .. . . ummm, how do I put this nicely . . . . . nuts?

No.

A lot of other Governments are adopting laws that allow citizens to be charged with crimes that were commited in another country, despite the laws where the crime was commited. That means that not just Americans are ...nuts.

[kat]

ok,well, as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet but I see at least two very important sides.

Since you feel so strongly about one, how do you suggest the government goes about enforcing the law on deadbeat dads that leave the Country?

*I ask this question because you talk about rights and justice, but that includes everyone, not just your individual rights. Civil rights are also about what you cannot do if it impinges on the rights, safety and liberty of others.

Personally I think the main point about the law here is that in the USA the divorce and child support laws are governed by the states. Every state has their own laws pertaining to these cases. The passport is issued by the USA Federal Government and the Federal Government should not be involved in enforcing State Laws.

ok, yes that's a good point, and a technical one. There are plenty of cases where federal law will supercede states, and federal agents get involved. If a deadbeat dad skips the Country, he effectively nulls the position of states in terms of enforcement.

Actually all Federal Laws supersede state laws. This means that no state has the authority to make something legal that the Federal gov says is illegal. Also state law can not make something illegal that the Federal law specifically says is legal. Neither of these is the case here. What is happening is that the Federal Gov is helping to enforce State laws. If they want to do this then they need to make federal laws governing child support and move the child custody issue into federal court.

In my home state they still have what is called a "justice of the peace". They do not have to be lawyers or have any kind of higher education. Any one can get elected as a JP. The real judges aren't much better. Let the Federal Judges make the decisions that are so important as the welfare of a child.

Yeah, you may be onto something there. I will discuss this with others in the know for awhile. I don't know how I feel about this law yet.

Look, can't we all just agree on one basic principle which overrides this whole thread?

And that is this. All Americans - and the governments that they choose - are just a little bit .. . . ummm, how do I put this nicely . . . . . nuts?

Well, yeah, but we're the kind of nuts that you like to watch.

[bendix]

OK.

But perhaps we can agree that there is a special type of nuttiness that is uniquely American?

Don't get me wrong. I love my transatlantic brethren. I really do. My dear old Mum shuffled off from old blighty and became one, for heavens sake.

I'm charmed to report that she too has adopted this nuttiness to which i refer.

[Ulysses G.]

Are you really Winston Churchill?

[kat]

OK.

But perhaps we can agree that there is a special type of nuttiness that is uniquely American?

Don't get me wrong. I love my transatlantic brethren. I really do. My dear old Mum shuffled off from old blighty and became one, for heavens sake.

I'm charmed to report that she too has adopted this nuttiness to which i refer.

And which would that be?

Are you really Winston Churchill?

No, he's Stalin for <deleted> sake - can't you see him adding names to his hit list?

[liketobe]

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.

OK.....what the f.....k you smokin? Child support is not between me and my ex?

I've lived it.............ex had full control of payments and visatation......forget what the cort said, it don't happen unless there in a good mod and its convenient for them.

And another two or three things you guys got screwed up about......oh forget it

[chinthee]

OK.

But perhaps we can agree that there is a special type of nuttiness that is uniquely American?

Don't get me wrong. I love my transatlantic brethren. I really do. My dear old Mum shuffled off from old blighty and became one, for heavens sake.

I'm charmed to report that she too has adopted this nuttiness to which i refer.

Actually, Bendix is on to something here. The Americans have taken the old common law system of England and have perverted it to such an extent that it's really amazing anyone has rights. Common sense, reasonableness, gentleman and lady concepts have just gone out the window. When anyone can sue anyone else at the drop of a hat, causing untold millions and millions of wasted legal fees and personal agony, it's just, well, criminal.

Back to this topic, State laws, being strictly enforced on maintenance (alimony) and child support are not bad things in themselves, even if that later results in the federal government yanking passports. The problem is that individual circumstances may change, and there is a quite poor system of petitioning courts (remember 50 states and 50 different systems of law) for change of circumstances for dads who are 8,000 miles away and don't have a spare $25,000 for lawyers. This results in some dads being classified as deadbeats even if they have been providing support throughout.

[TAWP]

cdnvic>> I'm going to assume you are suffering from a reading disorder to assume that property rights would be abolished under a system of my choice.

In such a case the owner would expect items to leave the store, the only crime would be not leaving the money behind. Absconding from the shop with money that should rightfully go to the shopkeeper is no different than absconding from the country with money that should rightfully go to your child. In each case there are laws enacted by the government to protect the rights of both the shop owner and the child.

You can PM me when you have rectified your reading disorder.

Here is a hint: No person has a RIGHT to get founding from someone else automatically. You have a very perverted view on universal rights, but I already knew that.

That goes for kat too.

[kat]

cdnvic>> I'm going to assume you are suffering from a reading disorder to assume that property rights would be abolished under a system of my choice.

In such a case the owner would expect items to leave the store, the only crime would be not leaving the money behind. Absconding from the shop with money that should rightfully go to the shopkeeper is no different than absconding from the country with money that should rightfully go to your child. In each case there are laws enacted by the government to protect the rights of both the shop owner and the child.

You can PM me when you have rectified your reading disorder.

Here is a hint: No person has a RIGHT to get founding from someone else automatically. You have a very perverted view on universal rights, but I already knew that.

That goes for kat too.

Actually, yes they do. If you are a child that grows up in a house where your basic needs have been neglected, it's called child abuse and abandonment, and your parent can and should be lawfully arrested and corrected. Now, why should that be any different because they skip the country?

You are the one with the perverse ideas of "rights".

[TAWP]

Here is a hint: No person has a RIGHT to get founding from someone else automatically. You have a very perverted view on universal rights, but I already knew that.

That goes for kat too.

Actually, yes they do. If you are a child that grows up in a house where your basic needs have been neglected, it's called child abuse and abandonment, and your parent can and should be lawfully arrested and corrected. Now, why should that be any different because they skip the country?

You are the one with the perverse ideas of "rights".

Please inform us how the parent that lost the custidy battle and are 10 000miles away should be held responsible for neglect on the care of the kids at the hand of the other parent. A divorce including monetary support for the children can be handled via a civil contract and doesn't need to involve the government.

You probably think that social welfare systems is a right too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_views_of_rights

[kat]

No, not necessarily, but that is IRRELEVANT for the purpose of this thread. We are not talking about social benefits here, we are talking about a deadbeat parents responsibility. I am truly amazed by your conflating the two, and I am going to bed. I've had enough.

[TAWP]

You fail to respond to you my question and then goes on to complain on something that shows that you lack the understanding on the argument in itself.

A parent that is away and neglect their kids will lose custidy. If parents divorce and one looses custidy rights and moves away the parent that has custidy for the child has a responsibility for the child's wellbeing. If the child is starving then the parent still in place should be blaimed - by demanding or accepting the custidy you accept the burden to have the child and keep it from starving. Are there a lot of children from divorced families in the US that are starving?

I agree that a parent, even if divorced and having lost custidy over the child, has a moral obligation to support their kid as they put it into the world. However the governments job isn't to define or uphold moral values, it's to protect the basic rights of an individual (and the protection from others limiting your rights) and nothing more.

Edited August 24, 2007 by TAWP

[simon43]

...Just so glad to be gay...avoids all these breeder issues Leaves one with a high-income leisurely lifestyle too...maybe you alls should look into it

[\quote]

Having read about all these high-maintenance ladyboys, I prefer not to get shafted by them (oops - bad turn of phrase....)

Simon

[Jingthing]

Simon says:

Having read about all these high-maintenance ladyboys, I prefer not to get shafted by them (oops - bad turn of phrase....)

Simon

The ladyboys aren't for the gay guys, they are for the straight guys. Gay guys like other males, thats the point of it

[PeaceBlondie]

Then there are gay men who father six children and later raise four of them. I just recalled the day my exwife went to work (which was quite unusual in itself), and left the little girls in the charge of their 8 year old brother. Big sister came along, realized what was going on, and called CPS (Child Protective Services)! One time the children went without running water for almost a week in the house; don't ask how. No electricity, numerous times. Finally I picked up the phone and told her I was taking the girls to live with me; no problem. Later we swapped several kids back and forth; again no problem, no involvement of the courts or CPS. The girls were later amazed that they could have more than one pair of new shoes per year. And I was never in arrears on my substantial payments!

I had three kids in middle school at the same time, and the school nurse was amazed that I was raising them on my own, while working full time. I replied that she knew lots of divorced mothers who were raising mutliple children on their own.

My apologies to anybody whose feelings I have hurt by my comments in this thread. One size does not fit all. Your mileage may vary.

[a2396]

Here's an example (attached article) of what one California local jurisdiction had time and money to "lay down the law" on - $587,496 in legal fees. That does not count the amount of money spent on police hours for investigation. I wonder how much they spent on chasing "Deadbeat Dads" & getting them to pay up? Why not get the Feds to do thier work for them?

San_Bernardino_strip_joint_ordered_to_close.rtf

[JimmyCA]

Agree with Toad. cnd is talkin trash

Care to elaborate with your own rebuttal or is a poorly written "me too" your best effort?

more trash from the trash master

[Austhaied]

Real men support their kids.

Quote of the month in my humble opinion!

Or at least (sorry Jai Dee for unauthorized use of the image)

[lazeeboy]

Real men support their kids.

Quote of the month in my humble opinion!

Or at least (sorry Jai Dee for unauthorized use of the image)

horses for coarses i say...........

[sonnyJ]

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.

Then why do we all (of whatever nationality) have to pay for them ?

We all need a proof of nationality when we travel outside our native land and it should be a government service to provide that proof.

BTW When is the last time you checked in to an international flight without producing your passport along with your ticket ?

Or have you ever done this?

Also, in Europe, Schengen countries, new electric ID passports are only valid for 5 years (instead of 10). And yes the fees have increased ( 42 Euros at home, 120 E in Thailand).

[KhunDennis]

A few months ago, I was in the American citizens service,at the embassy in Bangkok. I was chatting with a fellow in front of me in line, and he said he worked in Asia, and was there to renew his passport. From what I observed , he handed over his passport, and soon the attendant came back and said they were keeping it , because he had issues with his ex-wife saying she had not been paid the money owed to her. They were totally unconcerned about his problems, and said to him come back when you have cleared up the issue.

The man was completely dumbfounded by this, and looked like he had no idea what to do, but no amount of talking changed their minds.

I have no idea of what he did to get out of his predicament, but it seemed like a cold way to treat him, especially not giving him some avenues to correct the problem. I always wandered what became of him. What does one do in a foreign land with no passport?

[adjan jb]

Looks the feminists have gained complete control

It was about time. Women have been "the niggers of the world" since the beginning of time.

Moreover, a guy who fathered children but refused to look after them doesn't deserve any respect.

Another interesting sentence in the opening post is the following one : " You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes".

As far as I'm concerned I've seen more women whose lives were ruined by violent, drunk, selfish, irresponsible, unreliable (you name it) men.

Vive les femmes !

[Ulysses G.]

It is not our fault that women usually choose creeps over nice, reliable guys, but those types just turn on the insincere charm a little and the wives don't report them; they never get their passports taken away!

[November Rain]

Looks the feminists have gained complete control

It was about time. Women have been "the niggers of the world" since the beginning of time.

Moreover, a guy who fathered children but refused to look after them doesn't deserve any respect.

Another interesting sentence in the opening post is the following one : " You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes".

As far as I'm concerned I've seen more women whose lives were ruined by violent, drunk, selfish, irresponsible, unreliable (you name it) men.

Vive les femmes !

Interesting post. While I agree with much of what you've said, the sentence you highlighted got my attention, too, but for a completely different reason.

How bitter does a guy have to be about his ex-spouse to think of skipping on supporting his child(ren), simply to avenge himself for her "ruining" his life? Child support is about your (speaking collectively, not to any individual) duty as a parent to support children you fathered (or in rarer cases, gave birth to). Feelings for an ex-spouse shouldn't come into it. Yes, there are custodial parents who will spend the money on themselves, but then you can do as PB and other fathers have done & get custody of the children yourself.

Where there has been much talk about wives who have "screwed" their husbands or have tricked BF's/husbands by getting pregnant, very few people have focused on the fact that these maligned women are the ones having sleepless nights sitting up with kids when they're sick. They're the ones holding their hands as they cross the road, preparing their meals, kissing their hurt away when they fall over, attending school open days & plays, reading to them at night, checking their homework, watching tv with them, playing with them & a million other day-to-day things. Then we get the guys who do very few of those everyday things, but moan, because of an infringement on their civil liberties, encroaching on their right to travel away from those kids they refuse to support because they hate their ex. Strange world...

[TAWP]

...and then we get neo-feminists who complain that their version of civil liberties, which is "everyone is equal but woman are special" and all that it infers, should be the one everybody dreams of no matter what the longterm effect of it is. Strange world...

[a2396]

Looks the feminists have gained complete control

It was about time. Women have been "the niggers of the world" since the beginning of time.

Moreover, a guy who fathered children but refused to look after them doesn't deserve any respect.

Another interesting sentence in the opening post is the following one : " You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes".

As far as I'm concerned I've seen more women whose lives were ruined by violent, drunk, selfish, irresponsible, unreliable (you name it) men.

Vive les femmes !

"Women have been "the niggers of the world" since the beginning of time"??? I think their status has improved a bit in the USA, in the past 20 or so years. Maybe you should relocate to there. I am sure one of your view would be right at home. I would hardly use your words of description. Women have often hold absolute power with regard to sex and emotional manipulation, if they are skilled enough at such.

[KhunDennis]

Concerning the post by adjan jb

I think you should think twice about throwing around the " N word", it is really not appropriate and offends a lot of people, and rightly so.