ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  May 25, June 22, July 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

International

International Travel – China / Thailand

First, I would like to thank everyone for their informative posts regarding the denial of entry of ports of entry. I was convicted of a lewd offense (Indecent Solicitation of a Child; Felony) in July 2003. The offense involved talking about having sex with a person who portrayed to be 14 but was a decoy police officer. My actions were stupid and I paid a hefty price for my poor chatroom sexual conduct. In addition to my sentence, I was required to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years in accordance to state law. I am no longer a registered sex offender because my 10 year registration period has expired.

Since my conviction, I have traveled internationally extensively to numerous countries as well as done business in China on a special visa without ever having any problems. However, to my big surprise, in July 2014, my visa to continue to live and do business in China was rejected and I was issued an order in my passport to leave by a certain day. I left China on the same because I was already schedule to travel back to the U.S. on the same day I found out my visa renewal was rejected. I applied for a China tourist visa in August to get back to China but that was also rejected. I attempted to travel back to China for 72 hours (visa exempt) with an onward flight to a third country destination (traveling to a third country destination is a requirement to land in China visa exempt for 72 hours) I was denied entry into China and sent back to the U.S. When arriving at the airport in China, my name was called over the airplane’s PA system for me to come to the front of the plane and that they could not deplane until I came to the front of the plane. As I was walking up the isle to the front of the plane as everyone was standing in the isle waiting to get off the plane, 2 Chinese immigration officers were walking towards me down the isle to meet me, which then they escorted me off the plane and into a small room. The officers informed me that I am not allowed to travel to China and I was told that I am being sent back to the U.S. I remained sitting in the small room being watched by 2 officers while other officers rechecked my luggage and checked me into the next departing American Airlines flight. Officers returned to the room with a boarding pass and checked luggage claim tickets and escorted me back upstairs to the departure gate and on to the American Airlines flight. The whole ordeal lasted for about 2.5 hours from the time I arrived at the airport. I was in China for several years and never broke any laws there but now I have been blacklisted from China as result of an INTERPOL Notice provided to Chinese law enforcement authorities.

In less than 7 days after I was sent back to the U.S. from China, I traveled to Bangkok, Thailand where I have traveled on numerous occasions for vacation since my conviction. When I arrived at the airport in Bangkok, there were people standing outside the gate holding up a sign with my name. I approached them which then they presented a police officer badge and had me get on an airport mobile. I was escorted by 4 Thai officers on an airport mobile to a small room. When on the airport mobile, one of the officers sitting behind me showed me the notice which was issued by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) stating that I am a convicted sex offender and that I am traveling to Thailand with the intent to recommitting a crime against children. I was shocked, humiliated and embarrassed. My photo was taken with a mobile phone by one of the officers and I had to sign a document stating that I was being denied entry into Thailand. The immigration officer put a big denial stamp in my passport. I was then escorted to a detention room where I was going to be locked into a windowless room with steel bunk bed and other inmates. I insisted to call someone that what was happening to me was a mistake. I was only able to speak with an airline representative. After talking with the airline representative for almost 1 hour I was able to book a return flight to the U.S. with my credit card (Full Economy Fare) that prevented me from being put in a detention room. I was scared and totally upset. The airline representative came down to the room with my boarding pass and I was then escorted upstairs to the boarding gate.

I was able to confirm that ICE has office housed in U.S. Embassies around the globe. In addition to INTERPOL issuing notices on sex offenders, ICE is also doing it from their field offices. I talked directly with the officer at the U.S. Embassy ICE office in Bangkok who issued my notice and told me he can do it because the conviction is open source information. The officer also told me that it up to Thai authorities on whether they want to admit me or not. Well..DUH…no country is going to admit a person with derogatory information that was in the notice he provided.

Though I had one run-in with the law in my life, I have good character and I would never intentionally hurt anyone. I don’t even smoke or drink alcohol.

Since my conviction I have been living a fully productive crime-free life as I was before my conviction. These 2 denial of entries have financially set me back as well as created a lot of other unexpected hardships and crisis’ in my life. The law enforcement authorities have just made a fully functional citizen into now a dysfunctional citizen. I can only say that the officers who are sending these notices that claimed I was traveling to recommit a crime are scumbags.

I have retained a lawyer and I am currently determining what, if any, legal remedies are available to sue ICE and/or Homeland Security. From doing business abroad for so long now, most of my assets are in a foreign country that I cannot even get into now. I have made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to INTERPOL, U.S. Marshall’s Service, ICE and to the Department of Homeland Security.

I would like to get a list of names, email addresses and mobile phone number addresses of convicted sex offenders (registered or not registered) who have been denied entry to countries. I would like to share this information with my lawyer as well as I am thinking of filing a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union. Only if you like, and feel comfortable, you can leave your first name or nickname and contact information by sending an email to xiga576@hotmail.com.

I am also willing to work with anyone in this forum in researching how to address these sex offender notices on a broader bases to ultimately put a stop to the bad practice. Finally, after already conducting my own extensive investigation on the issue, the culprit entities that are best to contact about these notices are as follows:

1. Secretary of Homeland Security
12TH & C Street SW
Washington DC 20528
(202) 282-8000
This is the headquarters for the ICE field offices that are based in the U.S. Embassies all across the
globe where such notices are originating from.
Go to the following link for a map of ICE field offices, and their addresses and phone numbers:
https://www.ice.gov/contact/hsi-international-ops

2. U.S. Marshall’s Service Sex Offender Targeting Center
(202) 282 8000

3. INTERPOL Washington
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 616-9000
NOTE: INTERPOL Washington does not speak to private citizens about case information, but all sex
offense cases are handled in INTERPOL Washington’s Sex Trafficking Division and there are caseworkers
who handle the cases and send notices to the foreign countries.

This was submitted as a comment under “International Travel” by user “AdvocateVoice”. Deserves it own post…

Also see:

International Megan’s Law / RSO Travel Issues

International Travel

All Posts tagged International Travel

Join the discussion

  1. AdvocateVoice

    U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center & INTERPOL & Immigration & Customs Enforcement

    As I was previously advised by the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center, all sex offense conviction information as well as sex offender registration originates from the local (state) level. In the case of international travel, the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center collaborates with INTERPOL by sharing the information with INTERPOL, which then INTERPOL transmits the notice to the foreign government.

    I was advised by an officer at the ICE field office that they do not have access to U.S. Marshall records. I was also advised by a caseworker at INTERPOL that INTERPOL and ICE do not share information.

    ICE functions separately from the other law enforcement entities and is housed under the Department of Homeland Security.

    Essentially, there are two separate forces at work issuing these notices two foreign countries:

    1. INTERPOL in collaboration with the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center

    2. Immigration & Customs Enforcement field offices (ICE) (housed in U.S. Embassies)

    • David Kennerly

      One very important point regarding summary exclusion from entering any country: individual immigration officers are, or at least, HAVE BEEN, given tremendous latitude in deciding whom to allow into the country and whom to exclude. This seems to be true for many or most countries aside from the U.S., as well. This is likely changing as a result of these increasingly uniform policies which undoubtedly remove some of this discretionary power from individual agents. But any attempt to divine current policy from individual experiences, especially those which seem to contradict prevailing policies, should take into account the luck-of-the-draw which has, at least previously, always accompanied the crossing of borders. This makes the divination of policy, purely through the experiences of others, rather more difficult. We will, hopefully, overcome this through the gradual accumulation of travel experiences, thus pointing out the necessity of these reports.

    • David Kennerly

      I think it’s time for those of us here, however few we might be, to consider taking a more concerted and systematic approach to this issue, and to also urge RSOL, at the (appropriately) NATIONAL level (not just at the “California” level) to assist our efforts in dedicating resources that will raise its visibility as well as to facilitate our contact with the legal community which is certainly prerequisite to any effective challenge we might undertake.

      The resources may consist of nothing so much as a page on the RSOL website dedicated to this travesty, delineating the issues at hand and helping to coalesce interested members into a functioning work group as well as an introduction to attorneys and civil liberties organizations who are already known to it but who may be more persuaded of the merits of this issue given RSOL’s sponsorship and identification of it as one which it sees as a serious threat.

      Please, if you would like to contribute to this effort, or if you play a role within RSOL and can offer suggestions or support, contact me at davidkennerly@gmail.com or simply respond within this forum.

      Thank you!

    • David Kennerly

      One other point that I haven’t made previously:

      The sponsors of IML are, of course, urging its adoption, in part, as a means of “providing clarity and FAIRNESS” (!!) to sex offenders so that they might have advance warning of their entry refusals by other governments.

      The irony here, of course, is that the U.S. government has already done a terrible thing in colluding with foreign governments against its own citizens in restricting their freedom of movement through an administrative policy that has been kept largely out of the public’s eye.

      It now rides in on a white horse and assures us that, in the interest of what’s right and fair, that we should support a congressional bill which will have the effect of better ensuring that sex offenders cannot possibly travel outside the borders, as if that desire for “certainty” will compensate for its abrogation of their citizen’s liberties and the uncertainty which they, themselves introduced into their lives.

      I am reminded of this because I have read here several comments which seem to suggest that “clarity” on these policies will, at least to some extent, ameliorate their effects.

      I agree that clarity, under most circumstances, is better but must note that that the process of clarification can also be used to legitimize and to make more broadly palatable, intrinsically bad policies.

      If the remedy for this policy consists of its legitimization by means of its codification by Congress then, I would assert, we are not better off for the “clarification” that would bring. Instead, it will make it that much more difficult to fight.

      Also, I would argue that the effects of bad policies CAN be documented and can clearly identify their proximate cause in overreaching policies.

      I would say that one is on STRONGER legal ground in challenging a largely unpromulgated administrative ruling than a LAW enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

      So, it could be that clarity (from the government) will come but not at a cost we would find acceptable.

      This gets back to my criticism of those who accommodate the many gradual erosions of liberty which government demands.

    • David Kennerly

      What in the hell to make of this story planted by Ernie Allen (late of NCMEC) in light of the massive efforts of, not only the U.S. government, but of Interpol and numerous countries to prevent travel by RSOs?

      I think we are seeing a brazen effort at disinformation and an attempt to feed the flames of popular outrage.

      Tell me what you think:

      Green Notice: Interpol’s paedophile tracking system ‘compromised by privacy concerns’ following Edward Snowden spying revelations

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/green-notice-interpols-paedophile-tracking-system-compromised-by-privacy-concerns-following-edward-snowden-spying-revelations-9850170.html

      • Timmr

        Fear of terrorism hasn’t worked as they expected to quell the outrage over secret and unwarranted spying of everone. So now they try tapping into the fear of sex offenders to justify the program. I wonder what took them so long.

      • Eric Knight

        From the Snowden link:

        “You lose some of your civil rights when convicted of crimes against a child.” – Ernie Allen, US “Child Protection Expert.”

        Yeppers, really constitutionally astute, this specimen be.

  2. Robert Curtis

    After reading the whole piece I come to the conclusion going to the problem to solve the problem will only give those guys something to stick over their water-cooler for laughs!

    The answer to fighting this kind of violation is with our elected officials, community action groups and churches…It really is a boots on the ground problem. Learn scissor sharpening and serve those in the salon industry as I do. I am currently affecting elections by my involvement. My strategy is to give-away services to hairstylist for sharpening scissors in the name of___________(elected official) seeking votes. This has been awesome and powerful!!!!

    There are other ways you can make a difference and that is by volunteering with an elected official…take picture with them and afterwards make your interest in fairness for all Americans known. If they mess up on us… when they come up for re-election that picture with a known Registered Sex Offender becomes public information for anyone to use.

    Have we forgot this is a type of war we are in? Does law enforcement play fair? Do our politicians play fair? I’m a Christian and yes I’ll pray for change but “faith without works (action) is death…” (Bible verse). What we need is more action from our ranks not belly-aching. Engage, engage, engage.

    About the boots on the ground scissor sharpening for hairstylist. It’s easy to learn and doing so you’ll get to know those that know everyone in the community “the hairstylist!!” I’ll teach you. Donate $20 to RSOL (this website) and send RSOL your information (phone number and address) via their contacts tab and I’ll give you the step by step instructions to easy shear sharpening. The material cost is cheaper than you’ll find anywhere online. When you decide to run for office you will have already connected with everyone in your community indirectly. Powerful idea don’t you think?!?!

    That above offer is only for registered citizens and their family members. I will personally see to it you’ll help yourself and all of us while doing so! All funds are to help RSOL help us on the political and legal side. RSOL has my personal cell phone number to support your volunteer efforts in this regard. Robert (registrant and hairstylist/scissor sharpener)

  3. Tired of hiding

    This is exactly what happened to me when I tried to enter Argentina Last month on September 10th. When my passport was scanned it was flagged and immigration officers came to the both and I was escorted into a secure area. My partner and I had visited Argentina many times and had most recently lived there for 6 full year 2006 – 2012! No problems at all. And 15 years since the offence with no other incidents (not even a speeding ticket)!

    My partner was allowed to enter the country. I was held for 8 HOURS and guarded until the next flight back to the USA. I was told by immigration that the USA wanted me back because I had some “issue” naturally they would not reveal what that “issue” was.

    My partner rebooked our tickets for both of us (and our 2 Chihuahuas) and we returned. After returning I was not even stopped reentering the USA which was the first time that had ever happened!

    Clearly they didn’t need to as they knew perfectly well that their back stabbing scheme had worked perfectly and the intent to keep me trapped in the USA had worked with Argentina fully cooperating!

    I am also out around $6000 for tickets and other expenses such as apartment deposit, dog certification, etc.

    I AM SENDING YOU MY EMAIL ADDRESS.

    • Michael Tilotta

      I have been reading these sort of posts for several hours now, and from many different sites. I think that most people don’t get it.

      To some degree, all of this is certainly about the concern over the sex trafficking industry. Do you think the U.S. government has no clue what sort of offenders are doing that sort of thing and who is not. The drug and weapon smuggler types are the ones involved in sex trafficking, and there are certainly a good number of tourists that go abroad to find young exotic sex.

      But the whole business of the registration web sites and controlling where you can and cannot go, I believe is bigger than a bunch of sex offenders. All of this is some sort of test. Of what I cannot be certain. But I believe it has a lot more to do with obtaining control than it does concern over sex offenses. Governments have learned for a while that some issues cannot be controlled with guns – at least not for long. Afghanistan seems to me more about saving face (and exterminating a few pests) , and Iraq seems to be mostly about freeing oil – which just really did a lot of good. Not only that, the industrial military complex needs a good war once in a while to expend resources ( conspicuous consumption )and get a few bucks to sell new innovations. Not to mention a more realistic testing ground.
      Anyway, all the sex offender hubbub is probably being use in a similar fashion and to test different practices. The orchestrators who know what is really going on probably don’t care about us or any potential child victims – except to look good on election day. This is all about testing a system, and the S.O.s are a socially acceptable bunch of guinea pigs.
      I read a report not too long ago that mentioned something like 25% of all Americans now have some sort of criminal record. If the government was to use that to circumvent the notions of liberty it could easily begin to enact laws that slowly effect all these people.
      Do you really think the unaffected 75% are really going to complain when the government tells them they are in the good boys and girls club, which grants them some benefit over the other 25%.

      On the flip side of that, consider how long the SO programs have been around now. Like some other poster mentioned, American citizens aren’t really twisted about the war on terror anymore. In fact most people see it as a nuisance now and “please don’t spend any more money on this.” How about the war on drugs. See how successful that was. Hmm, is pot really legal in Colorado now? How many guys got 20 years for it 30 years ago?

      It all sucks now, but change happens. Someday they are going to register everybody, or they will change the game and only registers the 1000 most dangerous or something like that.

      The point is, SO registration was an upcoming thing 15-20 years ago in the US. Many people are changing their mind about it. That does not mean radically and rebelliously. Just starting to realize that its a bit over done.
      Overseas, its now a new thing to them, and they are getting these hazardous person notices from the US government. Let that go on for a little while, and some information float around and those foreign governments too may change their minds – even if it is just a bit.

  4. FRegistryTerrorists

    Just in case anyone still thinks the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and other government entities are not complete jokes, this is a great read. This is the kind of activities that these big government entities do instead of actually protecting people. I personally think part of the solution is to keep government as broke and dysfunctional as possible. My contempt and disrespect for them grows every day and I am going to make sure that matters.

  5. mike

    Maybe we need to start contacting foreign countries in which the president plans to conduct relations and warn them of the likeliness that his entourage (secret service) will engage in human sex trafficking.

    ———————————————————————————
    United States Secret Service personnel, who were in the country to protect the president, brought prostitutes into their hotel before the president arrived. Though Colombian police said that five people were involved, a preliminary investigation by the United States Southern Command suggested that 11 people could have been involved.

  6. Joe

    I am confused… “I am no longer a registered sex offender because my 10 year registration period has expired”. This is highly disturbing… if you are no longer required to register how did you even pop up on their radar? Had you self-disclosed on the Visa Application in the past?

    Can you expand on that? What state is this? Was the conviction expunged?

    And have you returned to the US from overseas since your registration requirement expired? Were you, at that point, made subject to secondary inspection everyone here is so familiar with?

    More details would be much appreciated. As are your efforts. I applaud your research and impending course of action.

    Please keep us posted.

    • td777

      Perhaps at the time of his conviction, or the state in which he was convicted, registration is only a 10 year sentence. Even in these circumstances, the government keeps records of convictions. Even if the registry were to go away completely, the conviction record is still there, which I’m sure is what they go by.

    • AdvocateVoice

      Joe – Thank you for your questions. In the state I was convicted in, sex offender registration is required either for 10 years or life depending on the type of conviction. The type of sex offender registration that a particular offender must abide to is solely based on the state statute. The state I was convicted in does not assess sex offenders based on the risk of reoffending. For my particular conviction, I was required to register annually for a period of 10 years that commenced from the date of conviction. Though I no longer required to register as a sex offender, the felony conviction remains on my record which is open source information.

      In my particular state, the only way to expunge my conviction is to file a petition for executive clemency in the form of an expungement. The petition reviewed by the state’s prisoner review board. I can choose to have or not have a hearing before the prisoner review board panel. The prisoner review board panel will then they make confidential recommendation to the state governor. I will never know the recommendation of the prisoner review board. Regardless of the recommendation by the prisoner review board provided to the governor the governor can ultimately decide either way on the petition. The state governor can take as much or little time that he/she wishes before making a decision on the clemency decision. The state governor can even let the petition carry over to the next governor is he/she chooses to do so. Should the governor grant a pardon, I could then go back to the convicting court to have my conviction expunged (destroyed as if the conviction never happened). Clemency, while not impossible, is extremely difficult to obtain in my state.

      To clarify on my particular issue, I have been traveling internationally extensively post conviction without ever having any issues until the second half of this year. When I was listed on the sex offender registry, I never had any problems traveling but now I have encountered barriers with international travel because ICE has chose to provide a notice that I am a ‘convicted sex offender’ and that I am traveling to the particular country to possibly recommit the same crime again. The “possibility” that I will commit recommit the same crime again is totally false. I have lived a fully productive and law abiding life since my conviction. I made a stupid mistake in a chatroom before but I learned my lesson and moved on since then. The notice that was sent on me has made a totally functional person into now a dysfunctional person.

      I intend to file a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security-ICE before the end of this year. The federal government has interfered with my right to freely move about. This is a case, in my particular situation at least, that I strongly feel the action of federal government was/is unjust and has overstepped their authority as well as violated my rights on several grounds. This may or may not be a class action law suit but I am collecting names and contact information of people with similar cases that I will share with my lawyer.

      I hope that I have been able to answer your questions.

      AdvocateVoice

      • JBCal

        AdvocateVoice:

        Sorry to hear about your troubles. Have you ever moved interstate since your conviction? Because if you have, you could be a registrant in the federal AWA records and not even know it. Or if you traveled to a state on vacation and ever registered in that different state then you are within the federal system as well.

        If you haven’t and you are definitely relieved of the duty to register, then it could be likely that your state DOJ did not properly “discharge” you from their offender registry. If that’s the case, it may be a much simpler (and doable) process for you to have an attorney challenge your state DOJ to correct the error.

        Once you are removed (assuming you never traveled in “interstate commerce”) you should be able to travel. At least for now. Currently it seems to only be registrants that have notices sent (except Japan it’s for a conviction).

        See the thread on this site with Dnam, who was just able to travel to Mexico on his honeymoon after getting relief from the registry.

        Good luck and again sorry.

        • AdvocateVoice

          JBCAL – I only registered in the one state I was convicted in when I had to register. The information at the state level was correct but apparently different federal law enforcement entities had incorrect information that I was a registered sex offender. I did confirm that INTERPOL Washington had the incorrect information but I was able to verify that they corrected it after I requested the state police sex offender registration unit to send the correct information that my sex offender registration file was expunged and removed from all databases. I am currently in the process of following up to verify if Immigration & Customs Enforcement has removed the flag from my name. As I can best understand this whole problem right now as it impacted me, ICE is the biggest culprit, who should be liable, but possibly the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center too. Specifically concerning me, China received a notice that I am a registered sex offender when in fact I am not, and Thailand received a notice that I am traveling there with the possibility of recommitting the same crime which is not true at all.

          AdvocateVoice

        • JBCal

          AdvocateVoice-

          OK, so it does seem to be an error (although I’m sure they aren’t the least sympathetic to correct it). It could take a while to get it all taken care of as my attorney has uncovered up to 41 US databases on offenders… (I had completely false information sent, even saying I was a fugitive and we still have not located the source.)

          Once you get the information updated, you should get a new US passport as your number may be forever flagged.

          Keep in mind, that as of now, the notices apply to registrants, but current proposed legislation refers to any ‘sex offense’ independently of being on or off registry. It’s likely to change soon under the guise of ‘LE information sharing.”

          Best of luck.

  7. USA

    Interesting stories. I plead non contest to a battery about 18/19 years ago/summary probation. (Ca). Now, the charge was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged. In summary, the conviction was expunged, but I’m still required to register! IT had nothing to do with child related issues. I wonder what will happen if I travel? I mean, I’ve visited Costa Rica, Canada, Philippines and a variety of other destinations. ALthough, this was about a year or more ago? I wonder what will happen now? Or, are they only targeting child related offenses? Or, I wonder if the offense being expunged did anything for me? WHen I re-enter the US, I’m still detained and they run me, but Im always cleared and on my way.

    • Tired of hiding

      If you have not traveled since mid 2013 to now you will PROBABLY be denied entry into those countries now. I also traveled freely until attempting to travel after mid year 2013. That is when this started. That is when the USA started to inform every country of our intentions to travel to them.

  8. Registrantone

    Absolutely horrible the way the borders are closing in on us. I will help fight.

    Do any of you travelers have experience with applying for TSA Pre program for flying domestically? I want to apply but am afraid my conviction will lead to a denial and I’ll lose the TSA Privileges I get on my frequent-flyer airline of choice.

    • JBCal

      Registrantone-

      The TSA pre-screen program is pretty strict for any conviction, even many simple misdemeanors like shop lifts, etc. If you get it some how now, you’re probably better off leaving it alone. FYI.

    • vahall

      Agreed – you are probably better off not applying. I got Trusted Traveler status because I also have SENTRI. SENTRI is the US/Mexico expedited border crossing card. It cost about $150 to apply and required fingerprints, inspection of my car(s) (because the cars get SENTRI stickers too), background check, etc. Better to let those dormant canines remain so.

  9. JohnDoeUtah

    The fact that the ICE document stated that you were going there with the intent of committing a new crime, I would say that is slander/libel. They have no way of providing one way or another what your intent is. I would file a tort claim against the individual who issued the notice for slander/libel as an individual, and also file an injunction against the agency from allowing it’s employees to make false representations.

  10. USA

    Advocate, I feel for you. I really haven’t ran into this issue, but I can imagine. To say the least, I have no idea whats going on with this country. We have 1st Time offenders here in California with misdemeanors who must register for life! Thats nuts. They have to register annually, until recently banned from parks/beaches/living in certain areas, plastered on the internet, prohibited from participating in Halloween and the list goes on and on. NOw, we are being prohibited from travel? Thats nuts

  11. USA

    I truly feel something must be done about this! I mean, this is nuts. Whats next?/as of this time, sex offenders are almost incapable of leaving the country? In my instance, I plead to a wobbler, which was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged/dismissed! Yet, Im still required to register 19 years later with a summary probation result at the time! So, I’m not a felon and by law never been convicted of a crime, but yet I’m still required to register and banned from traveling any further? I have no idea!

    • Tired of hiding

      Only in America the land of the free. Well, some are certainly more free than others as we all know!

      Yes, they just keep coming up with more and more way to pile on the punishment. You can count on a few new ones each election! I have seen it time and time again. It’s not going to stop either.

  12. USA

    As I read this topic over, I become angrier and angrier! Some years back (almost 20 now), I can recall dealing with an attorney and the man is now a Commissioner in OC. As such, I recall him telling me if I plead to a battery, (wobbler) I would no longer be required to register after the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor! Well, that was false. I initially felt that whats the big deal if I have to register for 3 years or so? He lied. Well, things have changed since then. Megans Law Website (isn’t that degrading enough)! People losing jobs as a result, divorces/murders as a result! Then, we had the DA from OC who attempted to institute laws banning individuals from parks, libraries, beaches, loitering or living near bus stops! This is or was literally and totally nuts. Then, we had and have individuals who are banned from living in certain areas of cities? Who on earth would think that ANYONE convicted of a crime would be banned from the beach? If someone told you this would occur 10 years ago, they would say your nuts! Now, we have individuals who have children/grandchildren who are banned from placing Halloween Decorations on their private property? I can’t even comprehend this. How can ANYONE be banned from placing Halloween Decorations on their own private property? Now, what if they don’t own the home and its their parents? Or, what if they are simply renting a room and the owner refuses? The legislators and politicians need to wake up. We have individuals who have been on the registry for years and never committed another crime? Yet, they continue to send the message that the judicial system is incapable of rehabilitating first time offenders? California, wake up and lets pass this tier system before its too late!I I’m still waiting for ONE of the offenders to break! I mean, you can’t keep pushing and pushing an individual. They always break. Good luck

  13. AdvocateVoice

    I was informed today by the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center that the sex offender alert notices about me have been stopped and that I am now good to travel. The partner federal law enforcement authorities have also been notified by the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center to stop the sex offender alert notices on me. This is very good news!

    Apparently, the sex offender alert notices are issued for anyone who is required to register as a sex offender. I feel very fortunate and gracious that I am no longer a registered sex offender and I see this as a second chance that I do not take for granted.

    Contact the U.S. Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center in Washington, DC if you have has traveled internationally and been denied entry to another country as a result of a sex offender alert notice, but are no longer legally obligated to register as a sex offender, in which case they can then correct the problem.

    Moreover, I personally believe that the sex offender alert notices should only be issued for high risk violent or repeat sex offenders, or hardened criminals that pose a real danger to public safety based on a psychological sex offender assessment, but not anyone who is listed on a public sex offender registry.

    Since the federal government has taken all appropriate action to reconcile my problem in a timely fashion, I will no longer be able to be a party in a potential class action lawsuit against the federal government for government interference in travel.

    AdvocateVoice

    • Tired of hiding

      Well aren’t you lucky. Good for you. See wasn’t that easy. Too bad we all don’t have it that way. Have fun on your next international adventure and be sure to think of us.

    • JBCal

      AdvocateVoice:

      That is good news. Congratulations on getting it resolved! You are the only other person I’ve seen here that had a notice sent because of an error. If they would just notify you in advance, then you could avoid losing $1000’s of dollars in travel and correct an error before the fact. If DHS can send a notice to another country can’t they send a notice to YOU. (My error once corrected would still likely have a notice sent.)

      You’re fortunate to be in a state that has some type of relief. My case is a reduced misdemeanor, 20 years ago, expunged, no other problems ever and still California has everyone for life no exemptions. In 46 other states including conservative Texas, myself and many others here would be off registry. But not ‘liberal’ California.

      Doesn’t California realize if you have even a remote chance of getting relief on good (great) behavior it would even help further to reduce any possible re-offense? Or don’t they really care about reducing risk to the public and only endless punishment? Oh right the registry isn’t punishment.

      Anyway, great news and glad to hear someone was actually able to get out of the travel ban.

      • Joe

        “misdemeanor, 20 years ago, expunged, no other problems ever” -> Certificate of Rehabilitation?

        • JBCal

          Joe:

          Yes, my attorney is preparing for a COR filing and says I’m an excellent candidate. It’s a reduced Hofsheier probationary offense that is not eligible for relief per 290.5 upon getting a COR. It’s an unequal protection issue. (And Hofsheier is under Supreme court review.)

          I imagine at some point I’ll get relief. Eventually on appeal and $$$.

    • Tired of hiding

      “Since the federal government has taken all appropriate action to reconcile my problem in a timely fashion, I will no longer be able to be a party in a potential class action lawsuit against the federal government for government interference in travel.”

      Perhaps you would be so kind as give some information of the attorney that you WERE working with when this issue DID effect you since not all of us have been so lucky and are still in great need of assistance in fighting this fight to gain back our legal ability to be “allowed” to leave the confines of the USA and travel the world. Thank you!

      Thank you for your

    • David Kennerly

      Were you explicitly informed by U.S. Marshalls that those NOT required to register should not be encumbered by notifications to destination countries?

  14. Tim

    There have been several lawsuits filed on behalf of the people on the terrorist watch list who have been detained, without the government giving them a reason why they are considered dangerous. Isn’t this flagging of registered, and apparently non-registered former offenders, in apparent secrecy, an extra judicial violation of travel rights, also?

    • Tired of hiding

      The US government has done many things in the shadows and some are surprised that they do this to its own people (NSA spying for example)…BUT those of us who have dealt with being registered sex offenders are not surprised at all at the abuse suffered at the hands of our own government. We deal with it everyday of our lives and it looks like we will until our last breath.

      There is no reason to expect that the government will treat us any better than terrorists…when they abuse the rights of every single American…we don’t stand a chance I am afraid.

      • Tim

        Terrorists get more sympathy and understanding in the press, which is not saying much. Center for Constitutional Rights jumps on the Guantanamo Bay issue, but ACLU takes years to file suit against the tent cities in Florida. I think these civil rights need a little shaming now and again. We have 850000 registered citizens essentially detained in their own country, because our government is notifying countries that we are dangerous. This is not normal or healthy or inevitable, but it is tremendously difficult to fight and I for one feel quite powerless right now– just the way the politicians like it. Yet, people are beginning the fight, and let’s turn this energy that is keeping us depressed into into supporting in some way the people courageous enough to take action. Write to the Center for Constitutional Rights and and as many journalists and lawyers as you can find about your denial of entry into Argentina. It wouldn’t take much more effort than the time you take to write here, just copy and send it off, you never know what seeds will sprout.

  15. USA

    Well , I attempted a Certificate of Rehab (battery/expunged/SUMMARY probation/no other issues/ obtained Graduate Degree ) and the judge rejected my requests! He couldn’t find one reason to deny the motion, but it wasn’t enough ? I was in sock (OC). The DA was dishonest, (occurred in LA) made all kinds of false accusations/ investigator harrassed me/ wrote false report/rude ect ect. I was in total shock by their actions! Good luck ! Im attempting to now file it again in LA 20 years after the fact! Anyone heard of a register able offense with summary probation?

  16. no comment

    HR4573 (International Megan’s Law) was supposed to authorize Department of Homeland Security to form an Angel Watch Center to notify foreign governments when sex offenders travel to other countries. That bill passed the US House back in May but is stuck in a Senate Committee. What’s really the purpose of that bill if our government is already doing what that bill had proposed?

    • mike

      The only difference I can see is when this bill passes it will allow the U.S. to secure funding to pay other countries to reciprocate with ‘a dirty list’ of their registrants. Right now, most countries aren’t sharing this information, so we hope that if we bribe them, they’ll cough up a list of those who are ‘LIKELY’ to travel to the U.S. to partake in our overwhelmingly rampant sex slavery/tourism/trafficking problem.

      • David Kennerly

        I.M.L. would make anyone who didn’t jump accurately through the application and screening process prior to attempted international travel a felon, once again. It serves their obvious goal of trying to put registrants back in prison.

    • mike

      Oh yeah, and this will probably turn into another idiotic debacle with as much confusion and participation as the Adam Walsh Act. Other countries will happily take our money until they’re demanded to comply with the requests.

      • Robert

        Mike, this effort is already funded by the US gov’t. This not an international effort by a coalition of countries, this is a US initiative. These “sex offender alerts” are generated inside the US. And then sent from a DHS analyst located at the US Embassy within the foreign country. The DHS analyst position is funded by the US gov’t and filled by a foreign immigration official. This (DHS) analyst is responsible for the information liaison from the US to the foreign immigration department.

        Also related is the fact that the US gov’t gives grant money within foreign countries for certain initiatives related the enforcement of human trafficking. The US sex offender deportation initiative is definitely already tied to the human trafficking initiatives, so there is already US funding being made available to the foreign country to enhance the efforts of this US sex offender deportation program.

        It is not possible for most countries in the world to reciprocate with the same list of “undesirable citizens charged with certain sex crimes” because there are very few countries in the world that track their citizens in such a way. So comparable information is not available to give back to the US. In other words, there is no like information to share back. The US gov’t is not interested in reciprocity, it is interested in stopping the foreign travel of its own registered citizens.

        Another factor is that there only 37 countries in the US visa waiver program that allows foreign citizens to freely travel to the US. Citizens from the other 159 countries cannot travel here even though US citizens can travel there in many cases (like Mexico, Philippines, etc).
        US Visa Waiver list: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1550/~/visa-waiver-program—eligible-countries

        The motivation for the foreign country to participate in this US program is that the US gov’t rewards participating countries with credit (public recognition, grants, other funding, trade status) for actively stopping human trafficking when a US registered citizen is prevented from entering the foreign country. And the US (namely DHS, law enforcement, politicians) also grabs credit for the action as well.

        • Tim

          In other words everyone gets credit, but human trafficking continues unabated, because they are targeting mostly symbolic, but harmless, bogeymen; like the drug war that has no real affect on illegal drug use, but great profit for producers and law enforcement alike.

        • David Kennerly

          Not quite. Please read my two pieces, linked here in June, about these laws.

          The U.S. justifies this disclosure to other countries as a quid pro quo for identical information it uses to block entry (categorically) to their citizens. It is not unilateral but it is dominated, and engineered, by the U.S. and the “Five Eyes” and Europe.

          This is truly global, at this point. The One World Government we have heard so much about from conspiracy theorists for a number of years now? This is the perfect expression of that government, along with the massive loss of liberties we have suffered, as a society, ostensibly in reaction to 9/11.

        • Timmr

          No, I don’t see there is one world order. There is one country that throws its weight around, but it is by no means governing much, unless you mean creating chaos and violence is governing. I’m not saying this just to be contrary, but to suggest that there may be other avenues other powers than our own country out there to go to.

        • David Kennerly

          Regardless of how we typify the global surveillance state and use loaded terms like “One World Order” the fact is that the internationalization of sex offender hysteria IS now truly global. As someone who has spent a good deal of time outside of the U.S., mostly in Europe and Asia and South America, it is absolutely clear that this is no longer a U.S.-centric hysteria, even if it is financed disproportionately by the U.S. government. It is TRULY global and, were the U.S. to disappear tomorrow, the hysteria would continue, unabated. It started in the U.S. but has now fully-acquired a life, an an unstoppable momentum, of its own.

        • Timmr

          “We must join these efforts in the minds of others so disposed towards the eradication of these threats.”
          This is from a later post by you. So you admit there are other “powers” out there with whom we can allie? Otherwise, one might just sit under a rock and hope the sky does not fall too hard. Maybe not a bad plan. By “powers” I didn’t mean to limit it to government bodies. Who is the intended audience for your research? The general public could care less about our rights. We are like ebola to them. Snowden brought out his information, because he believed the public would care. I’m guessing he knew about programs aimed at sex offenders, here and abroad, but the journalists releasing the information chose not to mention anything for fear of the public then cheering on the surveillance programs.

    • JBCal

      HR 4573 does basically just codify what is already being done. One important exception is it applies to ‘sex offenses’ not just ‘registered’ sex offenses, based on the federal AWA standards of notification. So, many states where some relief can be granted after 10 years will become a 15 yr, 25 yr or lifetime travel notification period. (It is also a likely round about way to expand arrestable reporting requirements on registrants from non-AWA implemented states.)

      Of course California is ‘lifetime’ for all, so we exceed these limits no questions asked.

      For a really extreme piece of anti registrant legislation, search HR 5138, the 2010 International Megan’s Law bill. It passed the House as well, but not the Senate.

      • David Kennerly

        Have you seen any policy directives on the currently implemented policies (not those in the proposed IML) to indicate the scope of notification-worthy travelers? You mentioned “registered” sex offenders. Is it limited to only those currently registered?

        Thanks!

        • td777

          It is not limited to those currently registered, though we may be their primary target, because it affects anyone traveling with a registrant.

  17. Anonymous Nobody

    Bravo! Bravo to you for taking a stand, for getting a lawyer to fight this crap, for considering contacting the ACLU to take it up, and anything more. Bravo!

    Yes, when you said: “… stating that I am a convicted sex offender and that I am traveling to Thailand with the intent to recommitting a crime against children,” that is new information I have been wanting. I have not until now known just what it is they are sending that gets such a serious reaction from the receivers.

    Gee, to send a misdemeanor record from, say, 30 years ago — how could that get such a serious reaction — but from all reports here, even one-time misdemeanants are being rejected at the borders. I wondered if it was because all that was being sent was the words “sex offender,” with no explanation. From what you just revealed it is worse than that: “stating that I am a convicted sex offender and that I am traveling to Thailand with the intent to recommitting a crime against children. ” That information is a lie! How can they even pretend to know what you plan to do,and if they did, whey did they let you leave!?

    If they are saying that, that is absolutely libel. That is absolutely winnable – unless, of course, the US claims sovereign immunity.

    Nothing should be getting sent, but if it is, it must at least be accurate! But making it accurate is not even close to enough to justify it.

    To go beyond a single libel case, yes, a class action to challenge the legality of, 1, the truth of the information being sent, and lying by omission is not truth; 2) that it is being sent at all, as it is not being done as part of any investigation, not even for reasons of terrorism.

    Also, another idea for California residents: the state law allows that information — or any criminal record information — to be given out, even to the federal government, only for certain, restricted purposes. I’m pretty sure one of those is not to tell other countries that you are traveling, as that is not an INVESTIGATION. I’m pretty sure it needs to be an investigation, not just publicity. Thus, if the US is spreading that info beyond that l allowed under California law, I think California is barred from providing the information to the US itself! I know, this is probably a stretch, but I suggest trying every angle — and if nothing else, can you imagine what attention that challenge would draw to the issue — Americans don’t even know this is happening. Gee, even we registrants can’t find out much about it — until we arrive at the border of another country.

    I further suggest that the US cannot default to let each and every individual state set federal policy as applied to its citizens, as per the US passing along this info about anyone required to register. In California, registration is for life, but in many states and for many lesser offenses, it is no more than 10 years, or to never have to register for many of the lesser offenses for which California sets lifetime registration. Surely the federal government cannot pass along this information for Californians for life, but never for someone convicted of the same offense in another state! Surely using this kind of state by state default is illegal as federal law or policy, as a violation of the Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Surely this is very challengeable, and could at least limit for how long and to what offenses they can pass it along, say no longer than the US requires registration, and not for any offense for which the US does not require registration — regardless of whether any particular state continues to require registration.

    I lost faith in the ACLU many years ago because they did not and — in my own contact with them, refused to — challenge this registration crap and the ever growing collateral disabilities. When I contacted them, I was treated poorly and told they have no problem with any of it. And where have they been all these years, with this growing and growing and growing. They have ignored what arguably is the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I find it abhorrent that you would even have to contact them and call on them to do it — they should already be all over it as such a serious violation of civil rights. How could they not do it automatically. This is so far and away a very serious civil rights issue, yet they have ignored it — and you have to plead with them. Unfortunately, it is a long time since the ACLU has been what it was decades ago.

    • Tired of hiding

      The federal government is doing as they please and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. As has been explained already on this board. They are sending out a notice of a travelling sex offender.

      They are stating that the sex offender is likely to commit these crimes in the country of destination…they can say this because IT IS THEIR POSITION that we actually ARE likely to re offend..hence, the very reason that we register and our movements tracked and restricted!

      So you can forget liable. It will not fly. Further more if they wanted to (but do not have to) they could claim that the information can easily be obtained from public records (they are just doing the foreign country the favor and saving them the work).

      Nest, the government claims that they are NOT telling the country to deny you entry. They claim that it is the destination countries free choice and they (not the USA) are the ones who decide to deny the RSO entry.

      So there you have it. No hope to fight this. In fact, in those states where the Adam Walsh act is in full effect a RSO must give a minimum of 21 day advance notice that they are travelling! This gives them plenty of time to notify everyone of the RSOs intent.

      However, as I have experienced with a recent trip to Argentina where I was denied entry, they don’t need 21 days at all. It is quite effectively shared via Interpol (see link below) in seconds once the ticket is booked!

      http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children/Sex-offenders

      This is un-winnable. And besides as you say the ACLU is a worthless organization who is not interested in the slightest of the constitutional abuses the sex offenders must endure (often for life)!

      This all went into effect mid-2013 FYI. Hope you got all your travelling done prior to that because that ship has sailed…

      • David Kennerly

        It is terribly grim, no doubt about it but I am not at all prepared to pronounce it “unwinnable”. There are, undoubtedly, constitutional grounds for challenge. But these restrictions parallel, very closely, policies put in place to thwart “terrorism” and, as such, may take a very long time to unwind. It may be that we can only benefit if those terrorist policies are successfully challenged and if the basis upon which they are challenged is clearly extensible to us.

        My own assessment is that it is “unwinnable” only if we do nothing. The ACLU is a mixed bag and terribly disappointing (so far) on sex offenders. But they aren’t completely silent on that topic. I am somewhat hopeful that they will find a louder voice in this regard. I do believe it’s coming.

        The biggest challenge for sex offenders? That so very few are willing to organize and stage resistance. That gives me greater concern than the seeming indifference of liberal society.

    • David Kennerly

      I wish it were so easy to challenge on the basis that the U.S. is committing libel. I strongly suspect that they are on fairly safe ground as they, very likely, do nothing more than forward criminal conviction data to the foreign government. In other words, statements of fact for which no libel law will allow traction.

      When presented with the opportunity to refuse entry to a visitor based upon criminal records, most countries, and certainly the U.S. and the “Five Eyes”, WILL refuse entry.

      We have to consider, they have not previously had sufficiently granular, REAL-TIME, data access like they do now. To a large extent, that RSOs are being refused entry now is down to the greatly expanded capability of governments to be able to do so.

      • Katharine

        David et al: It IS libel, however, with actual malice (from my reading of what that means legally) for the government to claim that the citizen-traveler is “highly likely” to seek to commit a sex offense while in another country. We could all agree to disagree on what “highly likely” means, but with the documented sex-crime recidivism rate for RSOs being as low as it is, in the single digits (see here for a run-down: http://www.usafair.org/recidivism_studies), I think we COULD agree that, statistically, it is actually highly UN-likely that a registered citizen will seek to commit a sex crime in another country. And the feds know this. Or they should. It is one thing for the government to pass along actual, individualized, criminal conviction data, but it is quite another for them to make a blanket judgment, and such a harmful one, about the possible-but-not-probable future behavior of 800,000 citizens, or any subset of those who wish to travel abroad.

        At the very least, a lawsuit challenging this malicious libel should unearth a lot of documentation about this program that is currently unavailable. I, for one, would like to see the document that makes this language a part of the policy.

        As a side note, now that the GOP controls the Senate, I am not hopeful that the next House-passed version of Int’l Megan’s Law will sit stalled in the Senate. This will need careful watching.

        And, David, thank you for all your research and writing on the travel issue. It is a great public service.

        • David Kennerly

          It is, of course, libel in the sense that the extraordinary contempt heaped upon registered citizens is, as a whole, a terrible and unjust libel. I just don’t think that we are going to be able to nail them on that basis because of the presumed limited scope of information they provide foreign governments.

          I’m not at all sure that the U.S. is providing foreign governments with anything other than factual conviction data and, if that is the case, then libel will not be, in my limited understanding, a basis upon which we can proceed against them. I suspect, but do no know, that our governments are NOT exchanging with one another their own assessments of risk for individual travelers if, for no other reason, than that would be an extensive undertaking that would also make their legal position more vulnerable to constitutional challenge. It is enough that they “ground” registrants (and possibly non-registrants, too) by providing some level of offense and conviction history.

          I would also urge those who would find the exchange of such factual data to foreign governments reasonable and acceptable to rethink that position as that simple transfer gravely limits the travel rights of U.S. citizens and would, quite likely, compromise their personal security and safety while traveling abroad (were they to allowed entry into another country).

          In other words, we must insist that this historical data must not ever be given by our government to any other. This is a terrible civil liberties precedent and a total inversion of the principle if government as a servant of its people.

          We know our government’s cynical conceit: that it simply provides destination countries with “the facts” of a traveller’s criminal conviction and takes no position, nor makes no effort, to limit the travel rights of that citizen.

          This is the cunning strategy they have carved-out with this policy, even if IML doesn’t become law (although I certainly agree with you that, with the majority of the Senate now in the hands of Republicans, that possibility is suddenly much greater).

          So it is that strategy that must be attacked, not conditioned upon the exchange of adverse speculation in which our government may engage and forward to foreign governments.

          There is still much we do not know about the nuts-and-bolts of this program and, I think as a point of departure, we need someone who is good at digging this up with some legislative or legal or perhaps just investigative background. And fairly soon, we’re going to need a good lawyer.

          Perhaps someone here can help us with these rather urgent needs.

          Thanks for your encouragement!

        • JBCal

          Katherine and David:

          You are correct on the empirical lower rate of recidivism, but below is the exact quote form the current in re E.J. [47 Cal. 4th 1258 (2010)], in conjunction with the current In re Taylor et al, case before the Supreme court:

          “Proposition 83 was submitted to the voters on the November 7, 2006 ballot. The purpose of the initiative was described in section 2, which explains that “[s]ex offenders have a dramatically higher recidivism rate for their crimes than any other type of violent felon,””

          Further, Prop 83 also known as Jessica’s law was officially titled: “The Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act.” How can something “titled” Punishment still not be classified as punishment?

      • Katharine

        I would like to add that the government also probably has, but has not released, statistics that show what number/percentage of RSOs that have traveled abroad (when they were allowed to travel) have been arrested and/or convicted of sex crimes in a foreign country. That information would be provided to local embassies and no doubt relayed to Washington, DC. In this report, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652194.pdf, on page 1, the GAO cites two anecdotes of registered citizens who apparently committed sex crimes abroad. I would suggest that anecdotal evidence is hardly adequate for a policy of libeling ALL registered citizens who wish to travel abroad. There MUST be statistics somewhere.

        • David Kennerly

          Yes, this is important datum which we really need.

  18. David Kennerly

    Anyone who has not read the two pieces I wrote last June about this very subject should do so now. They can be found here:

    https://all4consolaws.org/2014/06/international-megans-law-rso-travel-issues/

    Unfortunately, after performing all of that research and writing, all I could do was sit back and wait to collect anecdotes just like this one since it was quite obvious to me that the awful results would be inevitable.

    Some of the commenters here would do well to read them to clarify, in their minds, what the legal issues are and the authority asserted by our government to, effectively, place sex offenders in the U.S. under an international travel ban.

    Please note that the International Megan’s Law is NOT NECESSARY in order to keep RSOs from travelling. Rather, it would add some additional features that would make RSO travel even worse (criminalizing the ATTEMPT to travel without U.S. notification/authorization) but the regimen now in place does just fine at keeping RSOs in the U.S.

    To answer one of the questions asked by some of the commenters here: No, it doesn’t matter if you no longer have to register, it only matters that you were ever arrested or convicted of a sex offense. It has nothing to do with which state you were convicted in or if you were convicted of a state or federal crime. The pertinent authorities who are blocking travel by reporting criminal backgrounds to foreign countries are not the TSA, with which Americans are most familiar, but ICE, Customs and Border Patrol and U.S. Marshalls (all Dept. of Homeland Security) in conjunction with Interpol (an international organization with national “chapters” in 190 countries), all working hand-in-glove to make sure none of you can ever leave the U.S. for any reason whatsoever.

    I, too would like to hear from anyone who has now had the misfortune to attempt to exercise their right to travel but been terribly disturbed to find that it is now denied them as well as from anyone who wishes to fight these horrendous laws which are reminiscent of nothing so much as those used in the Soviet Union to keep their own citizens virtual prisoners.

    My email is davidkennerly@gmail.com

    Thank you.

    • Joe

      “To answer one of the questions asked by some of the commenters here: No, it doesn’t matter if you no longer have to register, it only matters that you were ever arrested or convicted of a sex offense”

      Do you have a source / basis for that? If it is in your paper I must have missed it.

      Your research and analysis are excellent. Everyone needs to read it. Thank you.

      • John

        Joe — at least on the “returning to U.S.” side I can confirm they still flag you because I’m no longer on the registry but get stopped for secondary screening every time.

        This document describes how the various departments gather and share RSO data for international travelers: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652194.pdf . On page 15 / table 2 it notes that customs “Receives an alert that the traveler has a National Crime Information Center (NCIC) record when CBP officers query traveler’s biographic information at air or sea ports of entry.” You have an NCIC record if you’ve been arrested or convicted anywhere in the U.S. of a sex crime, regardless of current registration status or requirement. This is what flags the customs person when they scan your passport on return and makes them do a double take.

        What’s not clear is if anybody gets advanced notice of your travel plans if you’re not on a registry. “NTC” is the division responsible for identifying travelers needing extra scrutiny (including sex offenders). On page 14 of that document it says “to determine whether a registered sex offender is on a particular flight, NTC determines whether any of the passenger data, such as name and date of birth, match any of the data in the FBI’s NCIC. However,
        NCIC may not always have complete information to enable NTC to determine if there is a match, in part because jurisdictions may enter information incorrectly or not at all because certain fields are not mandatory. In this case, NTC checks electronic public sex offender registries — which are not always up to date – to collect missing information”.

        For those of us not on a registry (but still in the NCIC), all they would have to identify us ahead of time is the name and birthdate you enter when you buy a ticket online. But what if you make a typo and enter the wrong birthdate? How would they know it’s you and not one of the 10,000 others in the country with your same first and last name who have no NCIC record? I can’t imagine they’d notify another country just based on a first/last name match for that reason.

        We really need to hear from someone not on the registry who traveled to one of the known “denying” countries that heed U.S. notifications about sex offenders. I haven’t traveled to one of those recently, but did go to Germany and Netherlands within the past couple years with no problems (just the usual secondary screening on return). I can’t tell for sure whether they weren’t “warned” about my travel ahead of time, or they were warned but didn’t care.

        • Tired of hiding

          John, you state that you “did go to Germany and Netherlands within the past couple years with no problems (just the usual secondary screening on return).”

          You must keep in mind that this started mid-2013 SO if your traveling was a couple of years ago it was probably prior to the time this was implemented.

        • David Kennerly

          That’s correct. Many RSO’s travelled up until then with no problems. Refusals of entry of which I am aware of since mid-2013 include: Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, China, Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, and, of course, the “Five Eyes” those English-speaking countries who have been excluding sex offenders for much longer and the basis upon which the Interpol worldwide scheme is based. My only sources for those countries are when people like those here report back from their experiences or when they are reported in the media. I have no idea how many have been refused travel entry or how many countries have actively refused them entry.

        • A Wife

          My husband was lucky in that he came off the registry a few years ago with a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

          Since then (at least half a dozen international trips later) he has not been sent to secondary inspection upon re-entry into the US one single time.

        • A Wife

          I should add that the customs agent definitely does a double take. There is still something in the system, it causes raised eyebrows and extra clicking and thinking, but it does not (has not yet) result in secondary inspection.

          Maybe because the Certificate of Rehabilitation includes a dismissal / expungement of the conviction.

          I do not know. And that is the most upsetting part. Why is all of this done with such a lack of transparency?

        • Tired of hiding

          You kidding right…”why is there a lack of transparency”?

          You do realize you are dealing with the government of the United States of America…the first country to use the current technology to secretly record everyone of it’s “free” citizens every communication right?

          Please don’t tell me that you assumed that all would be forgiven and the record wiped clean when even a completely “innocent” American citizen is treated like a criminal and enemy of the state by the American government.

          I am afraid that the 1950’s are long gone. There is no privacy, there is no justice, and certainly nothing is ever forgotten.

        • David Kennerly

          That means that they (the Immigration officer who takes your passport upon reentry) IS seeing criminal conviction information on their screens. But, they are choosing not to flag entry card for secondary screening because the system is according less security weight to your husbands entry. The information they are seeing is NCIC criminal history data with some kind of instant weighted-valuation afixed. Sex offender registration by state is, no doubt, available to that officer, but is unlikely to be the determinant for secondary screening.

        • It is what it is

          Have any of the overseas trips been in 2014 and have you had a problem GOING – in other words, has your husband been detained or been given any indication of a “warning” being sent to you destination?

          My conviction has been: (1) expunged (2) reduced to a misdemeanor (3) granted Certificate of Rehab in that order, but I am still very afraid to travel internationally for work because I may be detained and refused entry and then have to explain this to my work.

          I don’t think expungement of the conviction matters at all. My conviction had been expunged for many years before being off the registry, and I would still be flagged to secondary customs upon my return every time. They clearly don’t care if something is expunged or not.

        • Tired of hiding

          No you are not told you CAN NOT GO…and that is the “beauty” of this deceptive scheme. The US government can claim that it is the country of destination who denies you entry…letting them take the blame!

          So you go…waste thousands on tickets and hotel reservations only to be denied entry and sent right back where the immigration officials have nothing to say except “welcome back to the USA – Land of the Free”!

      • David Kennerly

        Joe, no I don’t have any hard textual references on current policy (since it appears to be entirely an “administrative” policy rather than a law such as I.M.L.). The fellow starting this thread now says he has gained relief from this notification due to his no longer being on the registry. If true, then that would indicate something different from what I had been led to believe by a source who stated that conviction data, not state registration, triggered notification.

        I would like to get to the bottom of it but would be very surprised to learn that current federal policy hinges upon variability in state registration terms. But IML, were it to become law, doesn’t rely upon policies of states (where registration periods vary) for determination of notification-worthiness, although I will now have to review the law in its final form from The House (where it underwent many changes), and refresh my memory, to provide confirmation.

        So if current practice turns out to be different in that regard, then that would be an additional severity that would be introduced by IML.

        Another reason for believing that registration itself may not be a prerequisite for notification is the reliance of “Homeland Security” upon NCIC databases to help determine secondary screening of INCOMING passengers.

    • B

      Thank you for your research and analysis on this. What about the issue of privacy?

      • Tired of hiding

        Privacy was forfeited when you became a RSO. The arrest is public record. The information is made available for public safety. (Remember that this is what the government says – not me).

        Furthermore, it has been shown that the US government has not respect for privacy. The NSA spying program and others have shown this to be the case.

        If they do not respect the privacy of the average god fearing tax paying “innocent” average Joe do you think for one microsecond that they have any regard for the privacy of convicted perverts like us – NO.

  19. Jeff Green

    The people in charge of our governments worldwide are mentally unqualified and psychotic. It has nothing to do with the protection of children because children themselves have told us repeatedly that they like physical relationships with adults. There is no evidence from psychology and biology that such conduct by friends in safe environment is harmful.

    These so called governments only maintain their attitude by denying the research and refusing to examine the issue. They are not qualified to be our governments. The vast majority of them took and maintain power by force.

    You cannot oppose their injustice and psychosis by using their own tools, their own rigged courts and self-serving “laws.”

    A consensual relationship with a person of whatever age is not wrong and can be beneficial. Love is universal and wonderful. But we are surrounded by people who are not in their right mind and who have made a living hell of this world.

    It is our right and obligation to oppose them and to block their insane machinations. We must do this by means that get the job done. Acting like loyal little boy scouts our whole lives will not work.

    • wonderin

      It has nothing to do with the protection of children because children themselves have told us repeatedly that they like physical relationships with adults. There is no evidence from psychology and biology that such conduct by friends in safe environment is harmful.

      What a load of disgusting BS.

    • Eric Tazelaar

      You are, of course, correct. Politically INCORRECT but factually correct.

      However, gaining traction within RSOL on this position will not happen. Their policy follows very closely the pathology/treatment model of pedophilia and ephebophilia. Some for reasons of expedience, others because it is what they have been led to believe. For now, it is impossible to gain traction for the considerable scientific body of evidence which does, indeed, support your assertions.

    • steve

      I’m not sure the point of your post as you seemingly disguise what you are referring to in terms of age of said relationships. The two of you sound like you are trying to make pedophilia ok.

  20. no comment

    Maybe we should start a petition to get the White House to look into this unwarranted discrimination. Most travel to get away with their family or to visit family and not with an intent to harm children.

    • Tired of hiding

      You are joking right? The white house is the one causing this “unwarranted discrimination” which in fact they view as completely warranted and not discrimination at all.

      You said, “most” travel for reasons of vacation with their families…most…you said it yourself, so it is easy to see how they can justify “erring on the side of caution” where children are involved.

      I am sorry but it’s the truth and to think any other way is simply to be in denial.

  21. Tired of hiding

    It is rather pathetic that while some try to cross the boarder TO ENTER the USA that we are going to have sneak across the boarder as to GET OUT of the USA. I for one certainly do not plan on being a prisoner trapped within the imaginary boarder of the USA when it is my HUMAN RIGHT to explore this planet just as much as anyone else.

    I do not respect these artificial “rules” that restrict my movement. I will be fine breaking them just as others who have been abused and oppressed by those in power have done before me.

  22. Robert

    The right to travel internationally is not as well defined as the right to travel “freely” within the US between states. The recent ACLU No-fly list case is a good start for a challenge.

    These US Justice Dept/ DHS “instant deportation” requests/ sex offender notifications to foreign governments can certainly be challenged on:

    1) Endangerment of a US citizen when broadcasting to other foreign government that you are a threat to their citizens – Failure of the US Government to protect its own citizens. Your basic right to protection: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3172&context=dlj

    2 ) Violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments – Denial of Due Process and Equal Protection. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    – The US Government takes action to inform a foreign government that you are a public safety risk without affording you the opportunity to demonstrate that you are not a public threat, denial of due process.

    – The US government takes away a significant liberty interest from a registered citizen when the government takes these actions in preventing you from traveling to a foreign country without due process.

    – I believe the US government has the responsibility to notify its own citizen when notification is sent to a foreign government. It should be a priority of our government to protect its own citizens first.

    Good references:

    1) Significant recent court case (ACLU):

    https://www.aclu.org/national-security/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed

    2) International Travel and the Constitution (UCLA LAW REVIEW 2008):
    http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-2-1.pdf

    3) Freedom of Movement definition:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

    4) ACLU Travel Rights:
    https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling

    • Tired of hiding

      All of your points are perfectly straightforward and clear SO can someone PLEASE explain to ME WHY this has NOT been challenged and WON?

      I am perfectly WILLING to be represented by a lawyer who is interested in actual JUSTICE and I will not simply be John Doe but a real person with a name and face who this discrimination has happened to when I was denied entry into Argentina September 9, 2014.

      I am certain that I am not the only one who this has recently happened to who would be willing to be represented as well.

      Honestly, isn’t there someone out of law school who would love to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the USA. If only to prove that they got their money’s worth out of law school!

      Please feel free to contact me via the admin of this board.

      • Eric Knight

        Simple answer. It costs lots and lots and lots of money. Money that most of us don’t have, and certainly too much for a lawyer to spend time on. It is hard enough to get somoene to represent registrants for OBVIOUS things like residency and proximity restrictions. Janice is the most litigious attorney in US history with regard to fighting sex offender laws, and she’s not exactly rolling in the dough.

        It is easy to volunteer to be a party to a lawsuit, but the real problem is in financially supporting the action.

        • Tired of hiding

          Well it might be “easy to be part to a law suit” but it’s not that easy to live as a sex offender and offer up my personal name to be used in said law suit which I have offered up!

          I am not talking about suing McDonald for making the coffee too hot…we all know that lawyers line up for those sort of cases! No – I am talking about something that could go to the supreme court of the USA and I would THINK that some hot shot fresh out of law school would clear some time on his/her busy schedule to actually purse something like that that they feel has merit and could be won!

          Jezz…some of you are so scared and beaten down that you are willing to take any crumbs you can get…well, I have said it before and in case you missed it, I say it again, “I want the whole cookie like very one else…I am not satisfied with the crumbs!”

        • Eric Knight

          I’m not discounting the difficulty in becoming the public name in an RSO lawsuit. Indeed, the way Frank has been treated for being the primary litigant on all the proximity lawsuits, particularly in public comments by certain lawmakers (*cough* Hesperia! *cough*) is definitely daunting to those who wish to include themselves on a lawsuit.

          However, before such action can be taken in the first place, one needs a significant amount of money. Despite all the successes Janice is having, it still takes thousands of dollars to start and maintain all those lawsuits.

          On the topic of SCOTUS: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court may be out of commission for quite awhile as John Roberts is the Chief Justice, and is highly unlikely to allow a case to come to his court that would threaten any significant aspect of changing the registry itself, UNLESS he knows it will come out in favor of the government (against RSO’s). Comstock comes to mind. In fact, I wonder if the 9th Circuit judges also got a call from SCOTUS with regard to the Prop 35 case for this very reason.

    • David Kennerly

      Excellent points Robert!

      Regarding: “I believe the US government has the responsibility to notify its own citizen when notification is sent to a foreign government. It should be a priority of our government to protect its own citizens first.”

      Well, this, of course would, but without your intention, tend to argue FOR the Int’l Megan’s Law currently before the Senate. In other words, the very law they want to pass against us to shore-up the questionable constitutionality of the notification process as it is currently implemented is being contemplated as a remedy for its nagging incompleteness.

      I see IML as being very much a piece of legislation which they may desperately want to pass if, for no other reason, than to provide constitutional cover for the extra-constitutional notification practices that are already in place.

      We really DON’T want to argue that our advance notification is sufficient in safeguarding our rights, do we? Or even suggest it? Rather, don’t we need to rightly focus upon the “significant liberty interests” (whose proper context you have wonderfully provided) which are unconstitutionally abrogated with any such scheme, notification or not?

      This is, perhaps, my inclination always, i.e. not to cede any ground which is not the government’s to occupy. And it is absolutely contrary to the disturbing trend in American jurisprudence: to find that individual rights are, somehow, to be “balanced” against interests said to be those of the state, a concept inimical to the values of The Framers.

      It’s important for us to ask, at this point, what a constitutionally intact policy of the type contemplated by our lawmakers would look like. I say that there is no element of it which survives honest scrutiny or appraisal and that we should be loathe to relinquish those few liberties which remain un-assaulted. This would require a steadfast unwillingness to accommodate their further diminution.

      Finally, it is important that we recognize how this effort against us parallels, in some very crucial ways, those policies, generally, which have crept into existence as a result of our government’s breathtaking assertions of power which it claims for reasons of national security in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

      “Information sharing” has become a mantra, both intra- and inter-governmentally, with “strategic partnerships” between allied nations now assuming a pride-of-place, having displaced long-held values in which the primacy of our government’s citizens were its greatest interests.

      So our challenge, here under discussion, closely parallels a much broader contemporaneous threat to civil liberties which is playing out right now. We must join these efforts in the minds of others so disposed towards the eradication of these threats.

      Thanks again for placing these terrible incursions against our civil liberties within the correct constitutional framework!

  23. Robert

    This is would need be a federal court case against DOJ and DHS, which has the SMART office and DHS under its umbrella. These sex offender alerts are generated at the federal level not the state level therefore would need challenged at the federal level. The DOJ SMART office has led the effort in putting this program in place since 2009. DOJ DHS has led the effort in implementing the program.
    At the federal level, the Department of State who maintains control of US passports has not been involved in this process. This is strictly a DOJ/ law enforcement initiative.

    If challenged, I think the government would be on slippery slope defending this program from the two US Supreme court cases that US sex offender polices are based on:

    1) Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (2002) affirmed public disclosure within the United States not internationally. It becomes a different matter when the US Government informs a foreign government a US citizen is a threat to foreign citizens another country. I don’t think the Supreme Court would see this international sex offender alert program/ instant deportation request as “just a civil scheme” like they did in 2003.

    2) The US is sharing US sex offender data with foreign countries that have no sex offender registry therefore it is not a common “data sharing” program between international law enforcement agencies. It is something else.

    3) This program evolved from the 2006 Adam Walsh Act which has not been looked by the Supreme Court since Smith v. Doe was decided in 2003. Many US states have found AWA to be unconstitutional.

    4) This program is very similar to the No-Fly List case which the US Government attempts to trump individuals’ Constitutional protected rights with its “need to maintain national security.” Like the No Fly List program, this sex offender alert program was set up within DHS using post-9/11 terror watch/ tracking foreign terrorists. Post 9/11 laws put in place for the purpose of national security and not for monitoring US citizens. The government can’t argue national security here. Instead, the government must somehow argue that it must protect the rest of the world from its own citizens.

    5) The program is overly broad and only targeted to a selected group of US citizens. The government would have great difficulty, with the abundance of data available today, showing that sex offenders as selected group are of a greater risk to citizens of foreign countries than other US citizens with murder, robbery, drug, and organized crime/ gang convictions who travel abroad.

    6) DOJ/ DHS have brutalized people with the Adam Walsh Act. This certainly must not continue. There are three recent immigration federal court cases decided this year that make it even worse for US citizens with certain convictions and their especially their families or loved ones. Here is a must read link for those with foreign spouses/ family members if you don’t know about these three cases decided earlier this year. At will under AWA, the government can reach into one’s past and destroy their entire family (the very ones that AWA is supposed to protect):

    http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2014/05/29/the-bia-39-s-adam-walsh-act-trilogy-because-we-can.aspx

    • David Kennerly

      Very good insights, Robert.

      One thing, though: The IML (which current administrative policy is clearly modeled upon, even in the absence of IML’s enactment) stresses the urgency of the U.S. providing offender data to the U.S. as a condition of it receiving offender data from THEM, so they are using that ploy as a justification for the necessity of IML’s information exchange.

      Secondly, it is very true that not all countries (still rather few, I would guess) have sex offender registries so, while one might argue that that information could not be exchanged with the U.S., this does overlook the possibility that such data does not need to be derived from a “registry” but simply from criminal records which are very certainly available. If the U.S. isn’t using the RSO database but rather the NCIC criminal database (as I suspect) as a source of information about offenders then we cannot really say that the absence of a registry in another country prevents the exchange of offender data being given to the U.S.

      Clearly, the U.S. government strenuously emphasizes, in their appeal to identifying civil liberties as a necessary trade-off to national security, that this program is very much a QUID PRO QUO. It must minimize, increasingly, the perception that it is a necessary incursion into the affairs of sovereign governments even if that really is what animates much of what they do.

      One additional point I want to make: I don’t believe that this exchange of criminal history between the 190 Interpol-affiliated countries is limited to SEX OFFENDERS. In fact, there is abundant evidence that it is not. Complicating things are the “Red” Notices and the “Green” Notices which have been issued for years. I think the salient point here is to ask: is Interpol limiting its reporting (in the case of non-sex offenders) to those who are currently wanted on outstanding criminal warrants or is it also now routinely disclosing, or in the process of expanding, its reporting to include historical, but fully adjudicated criminal data?

      It may be that sex offenders are the “trial balloon” (and a balloon which few would object to) in the pursuit of that more ambitious desire.

      Re: Commerce Department. They were included in IML proposal but were cut=out of that law to enable it to pass in The House, presumably out of constitutional concerns that its arbitrary powers granted by this law to limit or invalidate the passports of U.S. citizens was simply unsupportable.

      Your reasons for finding some hope of relief from this and the execrable AWA are, I think, correct. I agree that the ambition and appetite for unchecked power revealed by these programs may well be their undoing.

  24. It is what it is

    Maybe non-transparency is the government’s tactic to preventing legal challenges to their illegal/unconstitutional travel restrictions.

    It’s really hard to sue over something that isn’t well defined and that we can’t seem to get clarity on.

    Maybe the FIRST step to fixing this assault on our freedom of travel is to challenge the lack of transparency. Any reasonable court would agree that if you are putting travel restrictions on a certain class of people, there needs to be at minimum CLEAR GUIDELINES as to who is targeted and what exactly the process is. This seems basic. It is completely ridiculous that we have to sit here hoping for people to contribute their personal accounts (which I do thank the people who are giving us these accounts because at least it gives us SOMETHING to know what’s going on) so we can try to piece together what the specifics of this “law” or “policy” or whatever the hell it is.

    I’d really like to hear Janice or someone with a legal background weigh in on this, as it seems like it is slowly but steadily getting out of hand the way the “residency restrictions” did. We can’t wait for this to balloon to the point where our travel is cut-off.

    I would even be willing to write to someone and ask for the rules regarding these “flags” to start a paper trail, but I don’t even know WHO to write to!?

  25. Marie

    Is your social security number the identifier on passports? Or name / birthdate? Some other number?

    If you lose your passport and get a new one I’m guessing you’re still linked? What if you change your last name?

    My husband won a trip to Costa Rica that must be used by next July. His coworker also won. The coworker wants us to plan the trip together.

    The problem? I’m a SO but off the registry (10years, tier 1) in my state.

    I don’t have an obligation to notify anyone but I think Costa Rica scans interpol data on everyone?

    I really want to go but can’t risk my husbands job / reputation by being tossed out of a country.

    Ugh.

    • David Kennerly

      It’s a tough spot but you do have some time during which travel anecdotes will (hopefully) continue to filter in and provide a better idea of what you’re up against including, perhaps, other’s experiences entering Costa Rica.

      I would recommend an attorney but suspect very few will be up to speed on this issue as it is still quite new and unfolding.

      You do have several things working in your favor, in my opinion: you were a Tier 1 offender and no longer have to register and, frankly, the fact that you’re a woman.

      Passports do not include Social Security numbers but have their own numbering system assigned by the State Department. They are, however, thoroughly linked to SS and any number of other ways by which to identify you. They are dynamically linked to the criminal database, NCIC as well as to Interpol.

      Good luck! I think you should try for Costa Rica. It’s a very pretty country. If you do decide to attempt it, please do write back and let us know of your experience at the port of entry.

    • Tired of hiding

      I think you are wrong about Costa Rica. They are actually very high tech when it comes to tourism as they have been leaders in eco-tourism as well as a place famous for expats.

      Interpol most certainly has a huge presence there and of course the US is providing the information prior to your arrival so I would say forget it. Also the fact that so many have already reported being denied entry there that it really doesn’t look good.

    • Katharine

      Marie, as the traveler who started this thread did, you should contact the US Marshall’s Sex Offender Targeting Center in Washington, DC to check whether or not you will be flagged on entry. I realize that the last thing anyone with a sex crimes conviction who wishes to travel wants to do is call attention to themselves by making this phone call, but apparently the feds will get the information anyway, and doing so could save you a lot of time, money and trouble down the road. Indeed, if a bunch of other people, with varying convictions, and both on and off the registries, made similar phone calls, and wrote in here with the information they gathered, we could start to get a better picture of this program. And if all those phone calls clog up their office lines and take personnel away from doing their dirty work, oh well….

  26. Tired of hiding

    There is information on this very site about Costa Rica deninng entry!

    https://all4consolaws.org/2013/08/intl-megans-law-amendment-to-protect-more-kids/

    From one of the replies below the article:

    “When I landed in Houston I had no idea what I would face but the immigration officials had no clue what the Costa Rican government was talking about. My passport wasn’t flagged.. I am not nor was I ever under investigation and come to find out Costa Rica passed a law in 2009 that prohibits any US RSO from entry to the country. They lie to you with an official document terrorize you and guard you and then only to arrive back in the US to find out they just don’t want you there… I lost my airfare and 20% of my prepayment for hotel and tours. Plus was humiliated and terrorized. Fortunately my travel companions all knee about my record or I would have benn outed to them as well… Additionally, finding the information about the Costa Rican restriction was not easy so even had I done my own research prior to the trip I may not have found it.”

    • David Kennerly

      Based upon all of this and my too-hasty evaluation of Marie’s prospects for successful travel, then I must concede that an attempt to visit Costa Rica may not be in her personal best interest.

      However, if travelers simply stop trying to visit those countries where they were once allowed, then the government HAS truly won, hasn’t it?

      That’s the dilemma: an individual may pay the price (in this case, entry refusal and possible reputational damage which could affect family fortunes) but in which the exercise of constitutional rights helps to document systematic abuse by government and in a way which could facilitate eventual relief for that individual and others.

  27. Marie

    Actually, I’m less concerned about an alert on me as I am in reading that CR is hooked into Interpol and CR has a specific law banning SO’s.

    But I haven’t because, you’re right, I don’t want to draw attention to myself. Also, no offense to our government, even if two dozen US Marshall’s assured me my record was fine with no alerts I’m not sure I’d plan a vacation based on their word.

    • Tired of hiding

      Please I have much offense of our government and their hostile and illegal abuse of sex offenders who have paid their debt to society and yet are not allowed to move on with their lives – EVER!

      No…our government has committed many offenses and do not ever feel bad about being critical just as the founding fathers intended!

      Unfortunately you can NOT trust law enforcement to be honest with you (they are allowed to legally lie to you) and furthermore, you can trust them to know anything accurate. Ask 7 agencies and you will get 7 different and usually contradictory answers!

  28. ExpatRSO

    BE WARNED! I was recently deported after living several years in Thailand. I lost everything. I read the notation on my Thailand immigration computer file which they check at most borders, international airports, and immigration offices when you need to extend a visa. ICE gave my info to the the Thai immigration outlining my conviction. (possession of child pron, ironic as this is not an offense in Thailand) ICE even went to the trouble of described the section of the Thai Immigration Act I was in violation of, Section 12 paragraph 6 and 7. If you are a RSO and wish to travel to Thailand, make it a good trip because you will probably only be able to do it once. After that ICE may forward your info to them. This comes from SORNA AKA The Adam Walsh Act. Get a Thai immigration lawyer to have someone check he Thai immigration database before you go. Same goes for Philippines etc.

    • Tired of hiding

      Sorry to hear you lost your things! That is a real shame and you would think that they would have at least given you a week to get things packed and ready to ship. This really has dire effects on us all. What it amounts to is confinement within the boarders of the USA…and within those boarders we are further restricted from even from traveling with the need to register within certain time frames when in a different state even to visit relatives…not to mention places with restrictions such as 2000 ft from a school (which many hotels and relatives homes fall within).

      It is very close to house arrest for life! That most certainly IS PUNISHMENT!

      Once someone is off of probation they should have the freedom of movement restored…it is a fundamental human right (not just a legal right)!

    • steve

      I think the 10 or so people on here who have been a victim of this USA harassment needs to file a class action suit. If none of you do anything nothing will change. You guys need to form a group as I’m sure there are MANY more who aren’t even on this site going thru this.

      • Tired of hiding

        I agree and I have stated publicly on this forum that I am willing to do just that.

        I can be contacted via the admin of the board if anyone is interested in going forward with such an action.

  29. Robert

    This “instant deportation” program was started in the 2009/ 2010 timeframe by DOJ/ SMART office. Laws/ policies that were cited when the program was put in place:

    http://ojp.gov/smart/pdfs/InternationalTrackingofSexOffendersWorkingGroup.pdf

    Updates:
    http://ojp.gov/smart/smartwatch/12_spring/news-3.html

  30. Phil

    I’m seeing a lot of talk about “former” RSO’s and nothing about those currently still on the registry. When I got out of prison after a 2 yr sentence for having an illegal relationship with a person under 16 (even the D.A. in the court proceedings recognized it to the judge as “consensual” mostly to say it was non-violent), I was out for 2 days (yes, I’m on probation) and I went to get my passport because I had never traveled anywhere outside the USA (minus Canada via car for a concert) and after that prison stint I decided that I WANT TO LIVE MY LIFE AND STOP DAY DREAMING about doing normal things such as traveling and such.
    I got my passport, but I had not the money to travel abroad.
    In the sex offender group which we all have to take as a requirement of Probation, I brought up the idea of traveling outside the USA. The group leader (or “social worker” as they are best described) said that she has had clients on PROBATION leave the country for either work, vacation with family or foreign relatives. All she said about permission to leave is of course having to discuss it with your individual probation officers. There was no mention of anything regarding the US government stopping us from traveling outside the country while ON PROBATION or the REGISTRY.

    What brought about this change? And what is this madness our society has with RSO’s being the equivalent of a damn terrorist that we need to be “flagged”???

    They want to stop “Registered” sex offenders and use the excuse that we’d be going to certain countries to commit sex crimes?? Yet their countries age of consent is different (some lower than ours) so I’m curious how they consider that a crime even IF it were what your intent was. Also, while stopping “Registered” offenders, many high class rich snobs with no criminal records are traveling to places like Thailand and the Philippines every day to engage in sex with minors. If someone can ASSUME that a RSO is going to go there to have sex with minors, they may as well assume EVERY OLD MAN WITH MONEY is going there to try to have sex with minors and just BLOCK anyone from entering their precious countries. That way, only THEIR citizens can break the laws and not anyone from abroad. Man, I’m pissed after reading all of this. I work hard to earn my money and my money is just as green as anyone else’s and should not be turned away from being spent as a traveler. This entire world is going straight to hell in a handbag.

    • Tired of hiding

      Phil, I enjoyed world travel up until 2012 and now the door is slammed shut unfortunately. While there may be exceptions for the vast majority it is anyway. It is very costly to test and see what happens as I found out in September of this year with a costly trip to Argentina.

      Your probation officer will spew the official party BS which is that the USA is not telling these countries not to allow us in BUT I can tell you that is a lie. The USA government is most CERTAINLY telling these countries to deny us entry.

      And while you are correct about a certain number of travelers being dirty old men and traveling for sex tourism reasons unfortunately it has gone on and ALWAYS will go on…the only difference is that we are labelled now with a scarlet letter and they are not.

    • td777

      One law that I think is part of what they are using against us is one that isn’t that well known is the one stating that it is a felony to intend to travel internationally with the intent to commit an act that is a felony if committed in the United States. In other words, if a California resident plans to travel to a country with a low age of consent to have sex with a 16 year old, they have committed a felony just by making travel plans.

  31. JC

    I have a fiancé from Thailand and visited there 2 times. I have created a relationship and was at the top of the world until a piece of paper from ICE to Thailand Immigration telling them of my crime. The 3rd time I went to Thailand, I was greeted by 4 immigration officers and detained till my next flight back to USA. Previously to going, I was accepted a 60 day Visa from the Chicago Thai Consulate. I went through TSA in Chicago. NOT EVEN A WARNING THAT I MAY BE DENIED ENRTY INTO THAILAND. ICE never informed me that they warned the country of my crime. I feel that ICE should at least inform us prior to travel so there is no waste of money. I could have cancelled my plans to try to work this out with ICE. I never researched this before I left because I already went there twice. I bought an engagement ring on the second time I went there. My crime was twelve years ago. I am off the SOR. I went there when I was on the SOR. Now I guess I am supposed to forget 3 years of somebody that actually loves me. She knows my crime. I told her everything. I am very depressed with this. I thought I could never have a relationship here do to my status. But now with one piece of paper from ICE assuming I am travelling there for different reasons is depressing. Watching my fiancé cry on Skype is killing me. I don’t think I have any other option than to jump off a bridge seriously. I have nothing to live for anymore. I am 42 living with my parents. The only people who love me for me. I am not a bad person I am not a person that gets up in the morning and says..what child do I want today…THATS NOT ME!!!!!!!! Some people who make it a living to hurt children deserve it. But in my case…I just want to live and move forward. I cannot stop crying typing this. I wish there was some kind of way to get to my fiancé. Please help…

    • David Kennerly

      We need you! We need your story and we need your help. Please let me know how I might get in touch with you. Everyone with experience in being turned away from foreign ports of entry and those who care about this developing travesty need to work together on this. That is the only way this s**t can be stopped.

      • steve

        David thanks for trying to organize. I have not experienced this or else I would join you. Someone also needs a copy of what ICE is sending. We’ve heardit says something like “John doe is traveling to your country to further commit crimes” again not word for word but that statement alone seems illegal.

        • David Kennerly

          That verbiage, if correct, is certainly something we would need to document. Thanks!

        • steve

          Very 1st post on this thread.

          “…i approached them which then they presented a police officer badge and had me get on an airport mobile. I was escorted by 4 Thai officers on an airport mobile to a small room. When on the airport mobile, one of the officers sitting behind me showed me the notice which was issued by the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) stating that I am a convicted sex offender and that I am traveling to Thailand with the intent to recommitting a crime against children.”

        • Harry

          Is there anyway to educate these countries?

        • Tired of hiding

          NO

          We can not even educate our OWN country and politicians when they are presented with the facts!

          SO NO – not a snow balls chance in hell of that happening!

        • David Kennerly

          No. Given the criminal information they will exclude sex offenders. The only way to fight this is to challenge our government’s sharing of information about its own citizens.

        • Tired of hiding

          That is the exact verbiage and it’s not a secret but rather directly from their own public website!

          “Green Notice
          To provide warnings and intelligence about persons who have committed criminal offences and are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.”

          Source: http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Crimes-against-children/Sex-offenders

          http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices

        • Timmr

          By their own language they can’t put this notice on you simply because you have committing a crime. Both conditions have to be met: “… persons who have committed criminal offences [AND] are likely to repeat these crimes in other countries.” The first condition is really pointless. The goal is to prevent crimes against children, then simply looking at past crime is not statstically a reliable marker for predicting future crimes, particularly for those convicted of the broad catagory called sex crimes. How they arrive at the second condition is a mystery. What proof do they have that you are going to commit a new crime? Popular opinion? Where’s the evidence against you?

        • David Kennerly

          Yes, this is manifestly a due process violation. It is, of course, the same due process violation we are seeing deployed against “sex offenders” in myriad other ways. It is on that basis that these policies and laws must be vigorously challenged. I would argue that, even WITH due process, these are manifestly unconstitutional policies but that argument would be more difficult to successfully advance within the hysterical confines of contemporary society (to my legally untrained mind).

        • Timmr

          Interpol has a representative office in the United Nations. As a member they may be subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should operate consistently under the following declarations:Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

          Article 7.

          All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination

        • David Kennerly

          Interpol is an international organization but one with autonomous national branches in each of its member countries and which fall under the laws of those individual countries.

          The U.S. has its own Interpol force (Washington Interpol) which acts as a representative to Interpol, the international organization. Washington Interpol is composed of American citizens who are U.S. government employees (both Dept. of Justice and Homeland Security). As such, they must entirely adhere to U.S. laws and must operate within limits defined by the U.S. Constitution. This is how we can, and must, hold them to account.

          There can be no doubt that Interpol is currently engaging in unprecedented domain expansion with, not only sex offender notifications, but with its system of “Notices” in general and a level of intergovernmental collusion which can only be seen as circumventing the due process rights of their own respective citizens. It is on this basis which they must be challenged.

          The U.S., as I pointed out in the piece I wrote in June of this year, is, with this system of notification to foreign governments of its citizens criminal conviction history, asserting that it is not limiting the travel rights of their citizens (but which is being contemplated by International Megan’s Law were it to be signed into law).

          Rather, its principle conceit is that it is simply providing advance notification to those countries to which the “offender” wishes to travel. The entirety of the decision to allow or disallow entry to those “offenders” is made, in this interpretation, solely by those foreign governments.

          It is this ‘good faith’ representation by the U.S. government, in which its complicity with foreign governments to demonstrably harm the liberty interests of its citizens, which must be challenged.

          There can be no reasonable interpretation of this policy of information sharing as anything other than an unwarranted attack by the U.S. Government upon the rights of its citizens.

          Any court challenge mounted against this policy will almost certainly turn on this issue.

          But this is where we need experienced legal counsel, if we are to move forward.

          *** This comment was used to create a new post. Please reply to it there. https://all4consolaws.org/2014/11/interpol-and-green-notices/ ***

        • David Kennerly

          I should add, in addition to the DOMESTIC challenge we must mount within the U.S., as I discuss in my other post in response to yours, that there should also be this PARALLEL approach in which Interpol, the INTERNATIONAL body, should be challenged under international and U.N. laws.

    • td777

      I can relate all too well. My wife is also asian and we met a year and half after she had come here to the states. We’ve now been married for 16 years, and her love for me helped me get through the ordeal of jail/prison and 3 years of parole due to something I did not actually do. Now, because of all this crap, we are unable to go back to her home country to visit because while traveling with my wife and kid, they are under the belief that I want to go there to commit a crime. Even though she retained her citizenship in her home country, she won’t go without me. As a result, we can’t take our kid there to learn more about their heritage. This whole situation is, if nothing else, definitive proof that being labeled as a sex offender is punitive not administrative.

      • wonderin

        I can’t help but wonder about Philippine David (if I recall his handle correctly) I would tend to think he may be booted out of the PI and separated from his Filipino family. If so, that is a huge punishment for him and his loved ones. I can only wish them the best and hope a new tiered registry may help them.

  32. George

    I am a UK RSO and am extremely annoyed about this.

    How can they say that we are likely to commit further crimes when we have the lowest rates of re offense?

    I have not tested this out yet, I am now afraid to leave my country. I have to give advanced notice to the UK Police if I wish to travel abroad, thus giving them time to inform Interpol who will then send a green notice.

    How can these notices be challenged? Surely they cannot be published for everyone?

    They are now banning me from international travel.

    It is outrageous.

    What can I do to help?

    George.

    • David Kennerly

      It is, indeed, outrageous. I suspect that the advance notice you must provide U.K. authorities prior to travel does not make much of a difference regarding the timely issuance of “green” notices. I think that those notices are automatically generated as soon as the Immigration officer in the country you have just landed in scans your passport. The notice simply being that you are on the Interpol database already and any country can (and will) pull it up when you arrive.

      Since this advance notice is not required in most states (yet) and those travelers without that requirement are being turned away, is, I think, very telling here.

      The names are in the databases right now without any (sub)human intervention.

      Do remember, the “Five Eyes”, U.K. U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have been sharing this data for a number of years and we know that they all routinely block entry by any sex offender.

      • George

        Hi David,

        I believe you are incorrect. I know people who have traveled without any notification and have had zero trouble at all.

        This system is build entirely upon self reporting.

        Hopefully more info will come out within the next few months, at the moment I am a prisoner within the UK due to these notices.

        I have went through the criminal justice system to the benefit of no one and have not/will not offend ever again. It’s insane that they can send notices to say we will commit further crimes when the actual evidence could not be further from that. This is not just an US issue, although they lead the way as they issue a Green notice for every single RSO within the US who travels internationally.

        If you are a RSO within the US and have traveled internationally, your government has sent this info to Interpol, do not believe anything they say. This happens for all RSO’s. It’s only recently that countries have begun the rejections.

        I will do anything/everything I can to bring light to this issue.

        George.

        • Tired of hiding

          It would be useful to know where they traveled and what their individual circumstances were. All I can tell you is that I was detained in Panama and questions and I was just there for a 30 minutes layover.

          I was also most recently denied entry into Argentina in September of this year.

          So I would love to know so details about people who were able to travel and to where. Thank you

  33. Cali4

    Hello, my family and I travel extensively and have a trip planned in December. We have traveled to 4 foreign countries in the past 2 years and have had no problems. Do we think this is just targeted at child offenders? We spent ALOT of money on this upcoming trip and don’t want to travel all the way there to be denied (which has never happened before).

    Anyone out there travel abroad this year with no problems?

    • David Kennerly

      I can’t yet answer this definitively. We are still waiting for traveler experiences to confirm this, one way or another.

      The International Megan’s Law, not yet law as it would have to pass the Senate first and be signed into law by Obama, modified its language (as a means of gaining greater support in The House) to exclude those from these restrictions who did not have a child “victim”.

      But that may say nothing for current practice. I hope to find out soon.

  34. Cali4

    Thank you for the response. I think it might be helpful to start a new thread with just travelers experiences asking the following questions-

    1) date of travel
    2) destination
    3) issues encountered?
    4) child related crime
    5) registered or not

    This should help a lot of people save time and money.Again I have been to 4 countries in the past 2 years with no issues.

    • NPS

      I’d also like to know the following:

      Whether or not if anyone allowed/denied entry had their charges expunged. So far, I’m not reading this very important detail.

      Whether or not someone who is only known to local law enforcement or is actually on the Megan’s Law website are denied entry.

  35. The Angry Offender

    I was pointed here by someone who emailed me. I wrote a whole article about this problem way back in 2008 when they tried to push “International Megan’s Law” through Congress: http://angryoffender.com/hr5722.php

    The best way to combat this is to tell people who REALLY HATE sex offenders and want them gone about it. Present it sort of like this: “the US government wants to make sure sex offenders can’t move out of your country; do you want the government to make sure sex offenders who don’t want to live next to you can’t move away?”

    Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and emotionally driven idiocy with the same.

  36. Frank

    David & all, thanks for the insightful information.

    I’m a RSO. Crime was possession of images depicting minors. Completed probation years ago, but still an annual registrant. I have successfully travelled over the past decade, and even since mid 2013 where others seem to be having problems. Since last June, I have been to UK, Germany, China on multiple occasions for work, and Mexico.

    Just this past week, I was denied entry into Mexico which came as a complete shock to my wife and I. Wasted money, humiliation, etc. Now I’m concerned about a business trip to China/Japan in first quarter 2015. (I was just there in September last year without issues).

    Has anyone either been denied entry in the past 3 months or successfully traveled to China in the past 3 months?
    In the eyes of ICE, is possession of images viewed as a lesser offense as a “hands on” crime?

  37. Robert Combs

    Dear Friends,

    A report on international travel for a high risk sex offender.

    In March, 2014 I sailed with my family on a week-long cruise of the Western Caribbean. We departed from Galveston, TX

    At the port of embarkation Where I checked in for the cruise I was worried that I might be denied entry and turned back before my vacation began. As I checked in and they scanned my passport I was relieved to be given my ships pass and allowed to board.

    After spending a couple of days at sea we docked at Roatan Island, off the coast of Honduras. I went ashore looking for a passport control office. Finding none I moved on to the island and asked several locals and even a police officer where I could get my passport reviewed. I was told that if I really wanted a passport stamp I’d have to go to the airport and pay a $40.00 departure fee. I was assured that I could catch a ferry to the mainland, rent a car or take a bus and travel anywhere in Honduras without being asked to show my passport. When I returned to the cruise-ship I had no trouble and we set sail for Belize.

    At Belize City I took the long tender ride to the port, again, and, again I had trouble tracking down passport control or traditional immigrations and customs. After walking through town I found car rentals and the international bus terminal and was also told that no would ask for my passport until I transited to another country by land or by air.

    The next morning we docked at Cozumel Mexico and again I went ashore looking for someone to examine my passport. After a five mile taxi ride to “downtown” and walking for 10 or 20 blocks I was finally directed to the immigration office. When I tried to enter I was told that they don’t bother with tourist passports and that they were closed. Having spent 6-months in central Mexico last summer I didn’t expect anything different.

    Finally a days sail later we returned to Galveston and my return to the US was unique. Everyone else in my party passed through the departure desk on board the ship but when I presented my shipboard pass I was asked to step to the railing and wait for a ships officer. Eventually a cruise ship representative came down and told me she was there to escort me to Customs and Immigration on the dock. She led all eight of us past lines of hundreds of other departing passengers. Once were past all of our shipmates we retrieved our luggage and were then escorted to the head of the immigrations line. Hundreds of passengers muttered and whispered “Who are those V.I.P.s” as we were escorted ahead of everyone else.

    At Immigration I was asked to step aside to a small holding room to await a higher level of inspection. Meanwhile my family was passed along through the process without a moments hesitation. After about 10 minutes wait a Customs officer asked me to bring my bags over to an inspection platform. Three officers thoroughly examined each of my bags while a fourth officer asked me to unlock my phone so that he could review my pictures, favorites and e-mails. After only ten minutes everyone was satisfied with only one question about some pictures of my grandsons on my phone.

    The process through Customs and Immigration in Galveston was quick, about 20 minutes total, discrete, and professional. If you had been a fly on the wall you would never know why I was singled out for a higher level of inspection.
    In 2011, returning by plane from Hong Kong through the Detroit airport, I experienced an even quicker and similarly professional entry through ICE. In the summer of 2013 I moved to Central Mexico for six months and upon returning by car to the US at Laredo Texas my experience took much longer because they had to empty my entire car. Six months of apartment furnishings bedding and kitchen supplies as well as souvenirs. Here they even removed the back seat from my car. Although the auto search took about 45-minutes the agents were, again, discrete and professional.

    In the last few years I have visited the following countries without any incidents at their entry ports: Hong Kong, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Mexico, Honduras, and Belize. The only country where I was obviously flagged as a sex offender and my entry was challenged was the Philippines.

    Again I traveled to Mexico, for August and September 2014. I had heard about RSOs being turned away at airports so I decided to take the bus. After consulting the local Mexican consulate and being assured I wouldn’t have any problems I headed south. At the Nuevo Laredo border I, along with all foreign nationals, left the bus and was interviewed by immigration officials. The scanned my passport and happily waved me on through.

    I have heard horror stories from registrants returning from overseas travel but in the half dozen international trips since I was released from prison, in spite of the requirement to
    registrants to a one level higher degree of inspection. I have always been treated respectfully.

    Here are some of the things I consider before returning through US Customs.

    A minimum of 21 days in advance of international travel I register thru my local sex offender manager with the federal marshals, a new national requirement. (see attached Federal Marshal’s form) I meet with my local sex offender manager and have him sign a copy of my itinerary that I carry with me and he keeps a copy in my file so if anyone comes looking for me for spot residency verification and they don;’t find me my signed itinerary is on file. (see attached Local Travel itinerary form) I never carry a video or still camera (other than on my cell phone), a lap-top, DVDs, thumb drives, or any electronic media. I never carry other “Red-Flag” items, children’s, clothes or toys. (I always mail my grand children’s gifts home from overseas.)
    I am always pleasant and cooperative and I keep my mouth shut avoiding chattiness.

    I am looking to summer overseas again in 2015 and know to avoid the above listed destinations such as the Philippines, Thailand, Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK. Has anyone come up with a definitive list of NO ENTRY destinations? Can anyone suggest destinations in addition to Mexico that they have successfully entered in 2014?

    If you have any questions about my experiences, please contact me at RkimC@Hotmail.com.

    Robert Kim Combs
    Arkansas Time After Time
    (501) 563-2197

  38. brklyn

    I was also just deported from Thailand while attempting to visit Jan 4th. I had previously visited in October of 2013.

    Thai immigration also showed me the letter from ICE stating my offense. It didn’t state anything that said I had intention to offend. They wouldn’t let me take a copy of the letter.

    This certainly came as a shock to me when I got off the plane in Bangkok.

    Not only did I lose money on the flight I also certainly felt as a prisoner for something I did in 2001 which led to some depressed feelings. I completed all of my probation and treatment requirements and should be able to get off the SOR next year. 15 year requirement.

    I understand what I did caused many people great pain. However what I did was directly to my family. We have gone though years of therapy and work to rebuild. I know the effects of my abuse will never go away but things like this certainly do not help myself and my family move forward positively.

    I would certainly like some info on where I might be able to travel to because right now I certainly feel quite indefinitely punished if I can’t see anything outside of the USA.

  39. Robert Combs

    I have just received an inquiry from a corporation in Guangzhou China. They have asked me to fly over and meet with them on their dime. In the past I have flown into Hong Kong and had a local travel agent secure my visa into China with no problem but that was a couple of years ago. Now I am concerned. Does any one know if the sponsoring company requests your services with a letter of invitation and they secure your visa, could I then somehow mitigate China’s immigration prohibition.

    Has anyone had any problems entering Hong Kong lately?

    I recognize that only those who have encountered problems at points of entry are posting as those who have had no such problems are not motivated to complain therefore this is by its nature a self selecting board featuring only stories of woe. Are there any other success stories any of know of?

  40. Mike

    I was denied entry into Mexico last week. I was traveling with 4 co-workers for business, our manufacturing plant is there. I was pulled out of the line for immigration. They knew I was coming, and I didn’t even have a chance to scan my passport. Very humiliating and now my job is in jeapardy. I was planning a trip to meet my girlfreind who I love and was hoping to marry. It looks like INTERPOL is the main culprit. They are sending information actively to all nations through tracking system. Please sign me up, we need to fight this on every ground. My conviction was 20 years ago!

  41. steve

    Wow this is f’d up. We can’t leave but they let in foreign criminals if they have the cash:

    http://news.yahoo.com/whistleblowers-us-gave-visas-suspected-forgers-fraudsters-criminals-152937215–abc-news-topstories.html

  42. Robert Combs

    This week I was talking to the Little Rock police detective who manages sex offenders and the issue of international travel came up. He said that the only difference he has noticed in the last few months was the fact that lately Federal Marshals he reports international travel itineraries to have begun assigning case managers to each case.

    I asked if he had any local sex offenders who traveled internationally recently. As you might expect, in the Little Rock, AR community there aren’t many jet setting registrants, however he did tell me that one gentleman traveled for a week in Brazil within the last month and he had no problems. In fact he had not had a single registrant turned away by a foreign destination since he began informing the Federal Marshals in 2011.

    All I have read on this site are stories of those turned away. No one writes about successful travel experiences.

    • Allen W

      I was one of the unlucky ones…. But I also had no idea about the 21 day notice either. I have traveled 3 times internationally since I got off my probation prior to IML. I also had no idea IML even existed. This last time my third trip I was denied entry into Thailand to see my Fiance`. And Now I am on a blacklist for Thailand. I wonder if it would of made a difference if I had given the 21 day notice that I didn’t even know existed.
      I also agree it would be nice to hear about the success stories and info about their status/level, did they give the 21 day notice or not, What steps did they go through. If you have a success story please post it or if you know someone who has had success please encourage them to post it.
      Has anyone traveled to Hong Kong post IML and were they permitted in and did they give notice? I would love to hear if someone has. I had a 5 hour layover on my deportation flight from Thailand in Hong Kong and I did go through customs but of course our lovely U.S. Marshal had no idea I was going through customs there.
      If you have a success story please let us know all about it and your situation.

      • O..A.R.

        With respect, would you be willing to disclose your offense. Thailand seems to give more weight to certain offenses.

  43. Sad

    I was denied entry to Thailand on 8/25/16. Similar experience. 4 officers waiting for me. Photographed. Showed me the letter that it was ICE who informed them. Now I’m afraid that I’m banned from traveling overseas. I was convicted in 2011. Finished probation. Level 1 SO (lowest risk in my state). Did rehab and everything asked and beyond. I just want to get back to have a normal life again.

    • Robert M

      If you arent on probation or parole and only register once a year why did you even inform anyone of your travel plans? or are you leaving something out possibly??
      just trying to clarify why you would be denied entry and how would have known

      • ONE DAY AT A TIME

        I assume you are new here. Basically, everyone that travels outside the US is given a background check. Supposedly to see if you are on a terrorist or no fly list or are a registered citizen, If you are found to be a registered citizen, Angel Watch notifies the destination country that a convicted sex offender is soon arriving in their country. This notice causes many countries to deny entry. Please read previous posts on this site for more information.

  44. j

    Seeking to study with one (1) freedom-minded individual. Served 8 years in prison. Want to begin a fresh start.

    Seeking to establish a lawful usa exit route with legal border crossing documentation.

    I am seeking a place to travel through (90 days maximum stay), on a perpetual travel schedule between 4 countries.

    Anyone have recent success in exiting usa through Mexican free trade zones?

    • 4sensiblepolicies

      J,
      free trade zones are not relevant when speaking of travel under IML. Even if you could exit the usa undetected, you could be nabbed on your way back into usa and given a lengthy prison sentence for failing to provide the advance notice travel itinerary. Under this fascist policy, you’d better watch your back and be sure of what could go wrong.

      My heart aches for the men and women who will be torn from families and given multi-year prison sentences for even unknowing violations of this heinous and immoral legislation. And all because they only wished to engage in their right to travel and learn about the world.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.