Since you're not allowed to have a passport and that's been the case for years, it would hardly be surprising that GE would be revoked for child support arrearages. People pay up in one hell of a hurry.

While I am against too much government interference in one's personal life in general, I don't see a problem here. Why would this be scary in your opinion?

Here are other penalties (not including criminal and capias warrants that would be issued)

• Driver's license suspension, revocation of driving privileges
• Denial of government benefits
• Denial of tax refund
• Revocation of passport - or change to immigration status
• Garnishment of wages (this includes unemployment)
• Liens on real property
• Denial or revocation of boating or hunting licenses
• Adverse impact on credit score

It's not scary since the government is always right.
It's not scary since the government should be able to deny free people the right to travel.
It's not scary since people never have family or work obligations outside of the US.
It's not scary since people in debt can always easily afford to pay off their debts and always have their contributions tracked properly.
It's not scary since there is never a slippery slope with the government actions that involve frustrating the rights of a disliked minority.

My philosophy on this is that if a person isn't currently locked up and hasn't been locked up and isn't currently on trial for a criminal offense, then their freedom of movement should not be curtailed by passport denial/revocation. Unfortunately, the government sees it differently than I do on this matter and has since the POTUS was a former Arkansas governor whose biological father ditched him and his mother as he saw it -- that is when this HHS-State passport denial/revocation started and the numbers of denials and revocations started to skyrocket for free US persons.

The amusing thing is that citizens of the US who are denied a US passport or have a valid US one revoked can travel internationally still if they have a non-US passport but that increases the expenses for such persons and probably somewhat undermines their ability or willingness to pay.

I have no doubt that some of the US child support debtors with the largest unpaid debts in TX, NY, FL and CA include some US dual-citizens reported up to HHS and State via HHS.

What is interesting to note is that a few thousand dollars in child support debt results in passport denial/revocation while even millions in civil debts subject to collections processes by the IRS does not ordinarily result in US passport denial/revocation -- the attempt (a handful of years back) to make IRS debts a general basis for US passport revocation/denial got defeated in creative ways.

No, that's terrible. It's like debtors' prison. How can the US deny you a citizenship document or the right to travel simply because you have a civil debt?
Because it's using CBP to enforce some sort of civil, moral dragnet that is 100% none of their purview and has no bearing on the safety/integrity of the US border.

Because Congress passed a law that says they can, the moron in office at the time it passed signed it into law, and because the Supremes have not ruled it unconstitutional.

Maybe because its got to be court-ordered child support where the individual has to be found to: 1) owe the money; and 2) have the ability to pay it; and 3) hasn't paid. In short, is a deadbeat.

Since they've got the ability to pay, it's just a matter of collecting. Suspending/seizing passports, licenses and the like makes for this sort of thing to happen quickly.

And, since it's the taxpayers -- that's us -- fronting the bills when child support isn't paid, it's our money coming back in.

This has been going on since Clinton wanted this and signed it into law. It made his critic Gingrich happy too.

It doesn't have to be that for the passport to be denied or revoked, often as it may be, and often as it is not.

Not generally true.

That is anything but generally true.

1) Owe what amount of money? You mean an arbitrarily assigned amount ignoring realistic criteria?

2) No such determination is ever made.

3) And assumes the parent was ever informed of what they owed and had the opportunity to contest the assessment.

By taking passports/licenses, they are generally denying the parent the means to make the money to pay/

Taxpayers making up the shortfall? That's funny.

You are buying into the fallacy that the system has any degree of fairness or justice to it. It doesn't.

I was convicted of trespass in a park, a low-level charge, 30 years ago, and I went through the process of expunging it, though I was told that this did not expunge it from all records. Two major criminal record servers showed me without any record. But I sense it would be wise to declare the conviction and mention that it was supposedly expunged. To say nothing is probably unwise. Any opinions on this?

CBP can find criminal records going back to the 70s, so it would be wise to declare it. If you are conditionally approved, bring the documentation that it was expunged.

How about Juvenal records in the 50's or early 60's?

As others have noted time and again in this and other GE threads:

1. There is any easy way to find out whether CBP has a record. Just don't declare the matter and see if you are denied for having made false statements.
2. It is a felony violation of federal law to make a false statement on the application or to the Officer during an interview. Will it be prosecuted? Not likely. But, nobody can say for sure.

This is a longer way of saying that it is short-sighted and reckless to fail to disclose any matter, no matter how dated and how minor.

Thinking of a curfew and a driving without a license violations that occurred when I was 13-15 years old and got me into the police station. Being 50+ years ago I can't even recall if they were classified as arrests and I have no clue on the exact dates. So on the appplication I stated no arrest.
I have no problem discussing this in an interview.

And that's what you should do. You smile and say exactly what you have in your post. You draw a smile back. If by some bizarre chance there is a record in front of the Officer, you've covered it. If it isn't and he denied you because you misbehaved when you were 13, there are bigger issues.

The applicant may have it "covered" if they disclose the incident early enough (like when walking into the interview room). Otherwise, the applicant risks already being labeled as a liar/cheat due to the "sin" of omission. YMMV.