3 ms·

This is false equivalence. Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, a

by nutjob2 6mo ago

This is false equivalence. Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail. That power can only be granted by a judge. China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.

andersonpico 6mo ago
> China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever. What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process? But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse.
- giwook 6mo ago
  America is not exactly a shining moral example for the world, particularly these days, but these Chinese apologist takes can be a bit baffling to read at times.
  - nutjob2 6mo ago
    It mostly doesn't make any sense and seems to be motivated by some kind of animus or bigotry. But maybe understandable given the current administration's behavior.
BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
> Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson
- mothballed 6mo ago
  Anyone with a child support order that makes decent money is only one misrecorded or bounced payment away from being ineligible for a passport. The trigger is only 4 digits of USD.
  - smcin 6mo ago
    In the US, the Passport Denial Program, since 1998 (other developed countries enacted similar legislation), following the 1992 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) [2]: > The Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program was enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. While authorized in 1996, the program was jointly implemented by the U.S. Department of State and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in June 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement [1]: "The [US] Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program" https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...
  - giwook 6mo ago
    So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for. Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries? It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP. It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.
    - mothballed 6mo ago
      "Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that. I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.

by nutjob2 6mo ago

andersonpico 6mo ago

> China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever. What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process? But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse.

giwook 6mo ago
America is not exactly a shining moral example for the world, particularly these days, but these Chinese apologist takes can be a bit baffling to read at times.
- nutjob2 6mo ago
  It mostly doesn't make any sense and seems to be motivated by some kind of animus or bigotry. But maybe understandable given the current administration's behavior.

BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago

> Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson

mothballed 6mo ago
Anyone with a child support order that makes decent money is only one misrecorded or bounced payment away from being ineligible for a passport. The trigger is only 4 digits of USD.
- smcin 6mo ago
  In the US, the Passport Denial Program, since 1998 (other developed countries enacted similar legislation), following the 1992 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) [2]: > The Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program was enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. While authorized in 1996, the program was jointly implemented by the U.S. Department of State and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in June 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement [1]: "The [US] Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program" https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...
- giwook 6mo ago
  So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for. Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries? It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP. It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    "Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that. I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.