ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

General NewsInternational

National RSOL: International Travel Group

If you or someone you know was denied entry into another country as a consequence of registration, we want to hear from you. A new group, supported by RSOL National, is examining the issues related to registered citizens traveling, including the practice of the US Government notifying receiving countries that a registrant is traveling there. A representative of FAC will serve on the board of this new group. We want to make sure that your experiences areincluded in our efforts to enable registrants to travel freely and unmolested. Please send any information you have concerning yourself, another registrant or yourself (if you were traveling with a registrant) with details including dates, where you traveled to, whether you were detained, whether you were denied entry, and other information to Paul Rigney, rigneypa@yahoo.com, who is based out of Dallas, TX and chairs the group. National RSOL International Travel

Join the discussion

  1. Dr

    Great I’m sure hope this very big problem get solved soon I would love to be able to go on cruises again. It’s the cheapest way to have a very nice vacation

  2. jo

    As a successful businessman, my business is hampered by my inability to travel and meet with potential new supplier and discover new supply chains. It affects the success of my entire company and all my employees. I was never accused of traveling internationally to hurt anyone nor ever did. A 20+ year old conviction locally and still being punished.

    • David

      Almost exactly my situation. In my case, my partners and I own a small manufacturing facility in Taipei (which I can no longer visit) nor can I attend international trade shows nor visit customers in other countries (and virtually all of our customers are outside of the U.S.) which are essential to the success of our small business.

      The once-thriving American business (with American employees) is now on the rocks as a direct result of my internal exile in the U.S. We’re now discussing closing down our company.

      • Katharine

        Both of you might do well to write to your state and federal representatives to tell them about your situations. As good as it is to say it on this website, it might do more good to tell it to the lawmakers. I do not believe this issue is on their radar in any meaningful sense (i.e. they have no idea of the real-life consequences of the laws they pass), and it would be good to put it there. It also would illustrate to them how this country is shooting itself in the foot economically with too many prosecutions, over-incarceration and, in your cases specifically, way too many collateral consequences (the registry being one.) Best of luck to you both. Thanks for writing in with your stories.

        • David

          Thank you for your words of support. In my case, I have written to my Congressional representatives, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, several times specifically about this issue but, to date (and it has been a year since I last wrote to them) I have not received a response.

          I detailed the collateral consequences to me of the defacto travel ban but, apparently, this did not rise to the level of warranting either their concern or a response.

          I will note that, in the past when I have written to them about other matters, they promptly replied, albeit with a form letter or email. In this case, however, I never received even that (relatively meaningless) courtesy.

        • Harry

          I have written these same CA US Senators. plus my US House Rep. under Seeking Help from Government Agencies and none have responded, even after I request them to so. I believe, as CA RC, we need to mass mail these jokers.

        • David

          I should have included former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as part of the triad of my non-representatives (and non-responders) to whom I have written.

        • Katharine

          Wow. I guess I was naive to think that a politician would actually respond to a registered citizen’s valid concerns about his livelihood. That’s pretty rude, if you ask me. But it’s still great that you wrote those letters. Someone in the office must have read them, so at least you opened those sets of eyes to the injustice of this issue.

  3. Steve

    Flying to Paris next month. Got my fingers crossed. This is no way to travel, hoping and not knowing if you will be allowed to enter another country when you arrive.

    • Paul

      Steve, were you able to enter France successfully? I have plans to fly to Amsterdam on Sunday and then take the train to France on Tuesday. Will I be able to enter the country? Please tell me about your experience.

  4. Cool CA RC

    Maybe 50 RSO should show up at the USA/Mexico Boarder. What could happen?

  5. New Person

    I am a bit at a loss here. The crime was committed on US soil, locally, domestically; there was no international crime denoted. The US cannot restrict travel as it is a constitutional right. The US already does hamper movement by forcing registrants to tell every local municipality when he/she is leaving as well as when he/she is arriving. That alone is unconstitutional as it unwarranted search by requiring the registrant to give up said information when he/she has not been a factor of a new crime to induce such a “search upon a person”. Yet, it doesn’t necessarily restrict travel, but it does hamper it tremendously – such as in a form of harassment.

    Now, from reading so many international news of countries BANNING registrants, how do those countries know that a registrant is coming into their country? Simple. The US Government is providing the list. In providing the list to other countries and those countries decide to BAN registrants, then the US Government is an accomplice in the restriction of travel, in this case, international travel. While the US Government doesn’t control what other countries do, the US Government does control the dissemination of the registry list.

    For what purpose is the dissemination of said registry list? To protect children from the likelihood of a “frightening and high” re-offense rate of sex offenders. Yet, utilizing empirical evidence with credible sources that have been vetted, Prof. Ira Ellman has debunked the “frightening and high” rate of 80% recidivism by proving that sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of re-offending. Over 95% of sex offenders do not re-offend for sex crimes.

    Very recently, the CDCR, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, has founded through its research that only 0.8% of registrant parolees re-offend for another sex crime. In other words, over 99% of registrants do not re-offend for another sex crime when under parole.

    Yet, none of us see neither the Prof Ellman’s empirical debunking of the myth of re-offense rate upon which the Supreme Court used in its ruling (which is ruling upon false facts and needs to be re-visited via Writ of Error Coram Nobis) or the recent 2014 CDCR report that OVER 99% of registrants do not re-offend for another sex crime information be disseminated. Empirical evidence disproves the “frightening and high” re-offense rate and, in fact, proves that registrants are among the lowest classifications of not re-offending. So the theory of protecting the children is a myth that has been debunked scientifically and empirically. But the US Government remains complicit in disseminating the registry list to the world, thereby, restricting travel to a registrant.

    If that US Government feels that disseminating information is not hampering restriction and it is those other countries that are doing the restriction, then let us use the inverse statement to disprove otherwise.

    Statement: If the US Govt disseminates the registrant list to other countries, then there is a possibility that a registrant is banned from travelling to a foreign country.

    Inverse: If the US Govt DOES NOT disseminate the registrant list to other countries, then there IS NOT a possibility that a registrant is banned from travelling to a foreign country.

    The statement is vague on the culpability of the US Govt restricting travel and probably quite a burden to prove. The inverse is quite precise upon the culpability of the US Govt restricting travel to a registrant – which is unconstitutional as it is a form of punishment.

    A registrant needs just one country with a restriction ban as proof of restriction. I believe that is why National RSOL is trying to collect registrants’ experiences of being detained or not allowed into another country as EVIDENCE of proof that the US Govt is, in fact, directly culpable in the restricting and harassment of registrants travelling abroad. The more proof National RSOL has, the more difficult the US Govt has to get out from under the rock called the Constitution.

  6. Robert

    The US government will continue sending sex offender alerts to foreign countries until this practice is challenged in a court of law. The cause for being deported from a foreign country is the US police alert. If this has happened to you, please share the details with RSOL.

  7. Steve

    I just stumbled across this requirement for registered sex offenders to notify the U.S. Marshalls Service of upcoming international travel 21 days prior to departure. I have a European trip coming up and because of this and stories about people being turned away by foreign nations, I am going to cancel my trip, Hope the travel insurance covers it.

    Is anyone familiar with this Federal requirement?

    http://ojp.gov/smart/smartwatch/12_spring/resources-2.html

    • Timmr

      From that page:
      “This fillable PDF enables a seamless transfer of information from a jurisdiction’s registry to the respective destination country.”

      Only in this new government “double think” can handing over your right against self incrimination be a “seamless transfer?”

      • td777

        At least that page openly admits they intend to notify a country we may want to visit. Disgusting, but there it is for all the world to see.

    • NPS

      It’s been that way for quite some time. My understanding (and correct me anybody if I’m wrong) is that if you are not in an AWA compliant state, you do not need to provide that info. California is one of many states that does not comply with the Adam Walsh Act.

      • Robert

        Must follow state law. There is precedent law in US v. Lundsford (2013):
        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03616/pdf/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03616-0.pdf
        The 2013 GAO study stated that 22 states require notification before traveling overseas but only 17 states are AWA compliant.

        The 21 day notification form appears to be for the purpose of DOJ/ DHS generating a police alert or green notice on the registered traveler. It does not appear to be any kind of approval form.

        • Joe

          I never did understand this…. as soon as you leave your state you are subject to Federal Law. While less than half of the states are AWA compliant, Federal Law requires the 21 day advance notice. However, this requirement does not kick in until the second you leave your state, because your state does not require it. At the point you exit your state the 21 day notice is required, meaning you must enter a time warp and go back in time to provide said notice. You have automatically committed a federal crime. There is no way to avoid it.

          Am I having a thought fart here?

          And no, the 21 day notice does not appear to be required for the Green Notice to be issued. That happens with astounding speed and accuracy between check in at the airport and landing at the foreign destination. If all state and federal agencies worked with half that efficiency….

        • Kevin

          You are indeed correct. There was a Maryland case where a registrant was removed from the state registry, but under federal law he was required to be registered by the U.S. government. Since the federal government has no registering office the individual had no place to submit his information. The authorities in Maryland refused to accept his information after he had been removed from the state registry. I’m not sure what the outcome was for him.

          In my state, the registering authorities collect information that they do not require by state law, but is required by federal law so that the offender remains federally compliant. Unfortunately, my state has begun making that information publicly available and I have since stopped volunteering that information. Although I am not federally compliant, as long as I don’t leave the state I am not breaking any federal laws. Since I refuse to submit non-required info to my state I have essentially lost my right to interstate travel…

        • td777

          With all these issues, and the fact that California is not AWA compliant in the first place, I have refused to travel outside this state, even though I’ve grown to hate it here.

        • Joe

          “You are indeed correct. There was a Maryland case where a registrant was removed from the state registry, but under federal law he was required to be registered by the U.S. government.”

          How does that work? Been doing some research and come up with the following. Is this correct? Any input appreciated.

          The Registration Requirement under the AWA is triggered by EITHER registration currently required by the state OR by a qualifying conviction in state, federal or tribal court. And if the federal requirement exists, since there is no federal registry, per se, it would require registration in a new state of residence.

          Scenario 1: Person’s registration period in their state of residence has expired (in those states that have a tiered registry with different registration lengths). 10, 15, 25 years, whatever. This is a function of time elapsed rather than a court order of some sort. Person is not able to dismiss / expunge / set aside their conviction due to state / federal law not allowing this.
          —> Person remains subject to Federal registration requirement upon leaving their state because AWA language specifies qualifying ‘conviction’. Person is also remains subject to state laws where the restrictions are based on a ‘conviction’ (there was someone here from a different state, IL I believe, who still could not pick up their child from school after expiring off the registry itself).

          Scenario 2: Person has their conviction expunged / dismissed / set aside but remains required to register in their state (like many here).
          —> Person is subject to Federal registration requirement upon leaving their state (for travel or change of residence) due to current registration requirement.

          Scenario 3: Person terminated their registration requirement AND had their conviction dismissed / expunged / set aside (like getting a Certificate of Rehabilitation in CA, where the first required step is the expungement).
          —> Person is no longer subject to ANY registration requirement or restrictions because the person is not required to register (present tense) or is (technically) convicted of an offense requiring registration.

          To make a long story short, the only way to get ‘off’ completely is BOTH a termination of registration AND expungement of the conviction. Or is such a person STILL subject to some sort of registration?

          Is this correct?

        • Kevin

          Here is a link to an article about the case:

          http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-05-26/news/bs-md-sex-offender-registry-20130526_1_robert-merle-haines-jr-offender-registry

          If memory serves me correctly, MD eventually did take him off under a second court order. However, that order did not address the issue of federal registration without state registration.

          As seems to be the case, these laws were written and passed without any clear directions and judges continually decide to sidestep the important issues.

        • Robert

          Correct, if you have a state charge, feds can only enforce failure to register with a violation of state law. You are not in violation of fed law if you are in compliance with state law. If you have a fed charge you may have additional requirements. If your state does not require notification to leave the country, then you are not in violation of fed FTR.
          Read 18USC 2250 carefully. It states” as required” by the state statue.

      • MarkW-SF

        Are we sure California is not compliant with AWA?
        I mean, for absolute certain?

        Another related federal statute is PREA.

        I am a CA resident, and was able to do volunteer community service work with men in the main county jail for three years post-offense, until CA aligned with federal PREA.

        My annual clearance for this and other volunteer work with men in jail and prison was denied when CA aligned with PREA (with CA receiving PREA-mandated federal funds for alignment).

        Now, I cannot do any more such volunteer work in jails or prisons, or even attend support events for men demonstrating their rehabilitative work while still incarcerated (ie, creative writing symposiums, musical and theatrical productions, technology workshops, trades sales, etc.).

        I have been on the law-abiding path for nearly 10 years since offense, and you’d think they’d want to have successful individuals participate in such rehabilitative programs. What the heck do they envision is going to happen with armed guards every few yards anyway?!

        I’d like someone to explain why this now local, state, and national billions-dollars industry of the SRO containment agenda is not racketeering.

        And what exact US federal agency/agencies are notifying other governments about each SRO individual’s travel into a foreign country?

        These local, state, national, and international containment model practices are absolutely against recognized civil and human rights!

        • Timmr

          Maybe they are afraid you might actually help these inmates to rehabilitate. Then the re-offense rate will become even more minuscule, and the whole government funded racket will lose its legitimacy, and they will lose their jobs.

    • commenter1

      Enjoy your trip to Europe – no need to cancel. I was personally there last month. As long as you aren’t planning to enter the UK you should be fine traveling anywhere in Europe.

      • l

        You’ve had no issues entering and leaving?

        • commenter1

          Correct, I had no issues entering or leaving Europe in July of this year. When you return to the US you will be taken to secondary inspection where they will probably check whether there is a warrant for your arrest and perhaps whether your registration is current.

      • Paul

        Hello. I have plans to fly to Amsterdam and then take the train to France. As a registered person will I have any problems getting into either the Netherlands or France? Plane leaves Sunday! Thanks for any and all timely responses.

        • commenter1

          I doubt you will have trouble — haven’t heard of any problems in the Schengen countries. You technically enter the EU when you fly into Amsterdam so taking the train to France would not involve any passport control so that shouldn’t be a problem. Please let us know how it went when you return.

        • David

          Paul, I am wishing you a wonderful, problem-free trip! On your return, please let us know how everything went! Bon chance et bon voyage!

    • j

      Punishment is evident up and down. If these new era laws were not around when the registrant was convicted, they are clearly unconstitutional on that basis alone.

      This is nothing new but just another bookmark of truth that we are obligated to underscore both as validation and as fodder to combat the thousands of lies, one by one, in hope it makes a difference.

  8. Paul

    California is a non-AWA state. If you are not on probation or parole, you are technically free to travel without providing any sort of notice. Please note that federal authorities lack any sort of registration office; they rely on local authorities to manage registration.

    When I traveled out of the country, I went through the effort of notifying my registration unit. The deputy literally told me to have a nice time. No issue at all.

    • j

      If you don’t mind sharing, what country or region did you travel to unimpeded ?

      • Paul

        Sorry. Just saw your question.

        Mexico. May 2013, about 6 months before reports started surfacing about registered citizens being refused entry (I saw my first report on this website November 2013).

        My wife and I flew to Cabo to celebrate our 5 year anniversary. Thanks to the folks here, I was fully prepared for the return trip home. What I was not expecting were any issues getting into Mexico. I was wrong.

        Once we got off the plane, we headed to passport control. In Cabo, the airport looks just like any airport here, and they have a modern passport control area. Once the agent swiped my passport, his brow furled a bit, and I asked him what was wrong. He stated that CBP had “flagged” my passport. He then called another gentleman over, and that person took me over a room off to one side of the area. He asked me a bunch of questions about my trip, my conviction, etc. He wanted to see the hotel paperwork, and proof of my return trip back to the states. He took photocopies of everything and, after about 20-30 minutes, told me to have a nice time. They were all very pleasant, respectful, etc. But I was NOT expecting any hassle entering Mexico! So it was a bit of a surprise, and certainly caused a lot of worry between my wife and I.

        A week later, we were back at the airport, and on our way home. Having never traveled internationally before, I didn’t know what to expect from our own Gestapo. I had read numerous posts here, and they ranged from “easy, no worries”, to “prepare for a 2 hour nightmare”. Coming back into LAX, I figured I’d prepare for the worst.

        We arrived at Terminal 6, which has its own immigration area (separate from Bradley Terminal). Off the plane, straight to passport control. The female officer swiped my passport, and I observed the brow furling once again. She looked up, and told my wife that she was clear however, I’d have to go to secondary. I told the officer that I was fully aware that I’d be going to secondary, and she literally asked me, “Oh! You KNEW you’d be gong to secondary?”. I reconfirmed that I was fully prepared for it. In hindsight, I actually think this helped a little. Them knowing that I’d be expecting a trip to secondary seemed to make them less suspicious.

        Either way, I was escorted to an officer in the secondary screening area. Unlike some of the other stories here, this guy was great! He was going on and on about sports, and weather, and politics. Never once did he ask me a single question about my trip. All the while, he “searched” my bag; really, he just opened the zippers and took a look around. Whole process lasted no more than 5 minutes, and I was outside and waiting on my wife to join me. I actually beat her outside, as she had gone off to use the restroom! I guess she figured she had some time on her hands.

        So that’s my story.

        • TiredOfHiding

          Please don’t say “the guy was great.”

          He was violating your rights and was simply using SOP of distracting you in casual conversation to see if you will give up any useful information – PERIOD

          They are law enforcement and they are never great nor your friend. They are out to get you and nothing else.

        • steve

          “They are law enforcement and they are never great nor your friend. They are out to get you and nothing else.”

          I don’t believe this at all. I have not had a run in with any law enforcement in 20 years. They are doing their jobs. SOME are a little more eager than others. We did this to ourselves.

        • TiredOfHiding

          You are really brainwashed. I feel sorry that you can’t see that and have been mentally beaten into submission.

          We are being abused everyday with this treatment and there is nothing normal, moral, or legal about it!

          Oh and some of us are in fact innocent and just got caught up in a system that is so foul and unjust that once you in they make it impossible to get out.

          You might feel guilty and accept this second class citizen sh^t but some of us don’t think that way.

        • NPS

          Yes, some officers may be nice and, they definitely have been with me. Some are even empathetic. But I never forget that they still have a badge. While I respect law enforcement, I do not trust them one iota, and I never will.

          I was in agreement with Steve until his final comment, “We did this to ourselves.” Not everyone. In many cases, it’s California’s draconian laws particularly with statutory cases. Many young adults and teens 16+ have been charged where in 30 other states, it is completely lawful. In other cases, the registered citizen is factually innocent (as in my case, and it is on record). And even if an RC had committed the offense, he/she has paid their debt. There is no need for any additional punishment. RCs didn’t do it to themselves, it’s the legislature trying to restrict a segment of society who has long ago paid its debt.

  9. Fed Up

    Doest anyone have any recent info about getting into China? Applying for early release of probation this month here in CA, then applying for a passport and will need to go to Shenzhen China to my company’s mfg. factory asap.
    Thanks!

    • Paul

      My company has a factory in Dongguan. I attempted to get the required visa through the Chinese embassy, and was promptly denied. On the other hand, others here have posted that they have had success, so perhaps it’s hit and miss.

      My charge is a single 311.11 pc misdemeanor (only criminal history ever), dating back to April 2007. Charge was expunged in May 2010.

      • Fed up

        Paul, do you still have to register? From everything I have read, you are no longer reported by the reporting us agencies if you no longer are on the registry.

    • David

      From my understanding, China has specifically forbidden convicted sex offenders from entering China.

      If someone is able to get into China (who is not a Chinese national) with a conviction, then it may well be more of a case of oversight on the part of Chinese Immigration than actual disinterest.

  10. Justfortoday

    @ commentor1

    First, thank you for your post. But I am wondering why traveling to the UK would be an issue. I have friends there and would like to visit, if I can. Thank you!

    • Robert

      DHS ICE & UK signed agreement this year regarding foreign travel of sex offenders, will likely impact future travel

      http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-uk-national-crime-agency-enhance-joint-efforts-combat-child-exploitation

      • NPS

        This information exchange effort, managed by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) as “Operation Angel Watch,” is in support of ICE’s role in the criminal investigations of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents traveling to a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with someone under 18 years of age, which is a serious violation of U.S. law.

        Only if you live in one of 20 states. In the rest of country, it isn’t unlawful. I can see a big can of legal worms opening up here.

        • j

          I mean don’t you have to actually commit the crime in order to be punished for it? Oh I get it, this is a way for people to enforce imagined crime, and make registrants pay for it, in advance.

          A dream come true for anyone trying to hold on to a pension. Shooting fish is a barrel is easy and requires absolutely no acknowledgement of the constitution, bill of rights, or anything related to the principles our country was founded upon.

    • commenter1

      You will also want to read the UK immigration rules here:
      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422941/20150406_Immigration_Rules_-_Part_9_final_v4.pdf

      Read this part:
      Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
      is to be refused
      (1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules;
      (2) the fact that the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom:
      (a) is currently the subject of a deportation order; or
      (b) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
      imprisonment of at least 4 years; or
      (c) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
      imprisonment of at least 12 months but less than 4 years, unless a period of 10 years
      has passed since the end of the sentence; or
      (d) has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of
      imprisonment of less than 12 months, unless a period of 5 years has passed since the
      end of the sentence.

      So if you were sentenced to less than 12 months then after 5 years the UK won’t automatically deny you clearance to enter.

    • David

      The U.K. was among the first countries to bar registered sex offenders entry. As part of the so-called ‘Five Eyes’, the English-speaking countries, of which the U.S. is a member, they were able to take advantage of the information sharing between them to ensure that American S.O.s, especially, would be disallowed entry. The U.S., of course, takes full advantage of the U.K.’s criminal records to bar British S.O.’s, as well.

      The Five Eyes provided a model which could then be deployed worldwide through Interpol.

  11. Justfortoday

    @ Robert

    Oh gosh. Ok. Thank you very much for your input.

  12. quint

    Received this email today. Hope it helps someone.
    *****
    Hello,

    I am a registered sex offender in the state of California, with a single misdemeanor conviction of 647.6, sentenced to 3 years summary probation, convicted in November 2014. I am not on Megan’s List. I am aware that Green Notices are issued to countries for certain serious traveling sex offenders who are likely to reoffend. I would like to travel to XXX with my wife and children, and spoke to the embassy who referred me to your office to see if indeed a Green Notice would be issued.

    Any information would be most helpful.

    Thank you in advance,

    ****

    Thank you for contacting the National Sex Offender Targeting Center. While the USMS has the authority to communicate U.S. sex offender registration information to foreign governments through INTERPOL and otherwise, the USMS does not recommend admission or denial of entry based on criminal history with regard to the lawful travel of a U.S. citizen to any foreign country. Notifications are made based on the requirement to register as a sex offender, regardless of the underlying offense. Please be aware that sovereign governments decide to whom they will allow entry, and to whom entry will be denied. Denials can be for any reason, including, but not limited to, previous criminal history. It is recommended that you check with the appropriate foreign Embassy or Consulate before you travel, specifically discussing with them any possible individual exclusions you may have based on your particular criminal history. The (country’s) authorities would be best able to answer your query regarding their entry requirements.

    Thanks,
    NSOTC Team

    • Timmr

      Destination countries can’t answer the question why the US is designating people as dangerous and “likely to commit another crime in the destination country”, when the general re-offense rate for registered citizens is minuscule, and the likelihood of a former offender committing a crime after 17 years of not offending is the same as anyone else. Only the US has the responsibility of answering that one and explaining why their “intuition” overshadows statistics.

      • New Person

        A better follow up question is: Why is the US Govt sharing domestic information and for what purpose?

        If one country restricts travel due to the information shared, then how is not the US Govt an accomplice in the restriction?

        As much as I like empirical numbers, there have been numerous reports how low sex offenders are at re-offending. Nothing has come to fruition due to the empirical evidence. That knowledge takes time at the grassroots level. Now, restricting travel of a US citizen – that is infringing upon a US person’s constitutional rights, which shall not be abridged. Equal protection should kick in with any type of offender such as DUI, theft, burglary, drugs, ect…

        This is why Nat’l RSOL needs evidence of US citizen’s rights being curtailed. I thought the UN also has such provisions as a basic human right as well?

        • Commenter1

          I’m not sure where in the U.S. constitution it says it is a right for everyone to travel internationally. The interest here is that the U.S. Government wants every other nation to follow suit by providing a similar notification for people who travel here to the U.S. Since many countries don’t have a sex offender registry it’s not always possible to identify these supposedly dangerous people who could be involved in sex trafficking?

        • Timmr

          It sounds like New Person was talking about the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

          [Article 1.

          All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

          Article 2.

          Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth “or other status” (my quotes for emphasis). Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

          Article 3.

          Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

          Article 9.

          No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

          Article 10.

          Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

          Article 12.

          No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

          Article 13.

          (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
          (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

          Article 22.

          Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

          Article 28.

          Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

          Article 30.

          Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.]

          Great sounding words, but what’s who going to bind the US to it?

        • Timmr

          “That knowledge takes time at the grassroots level.” How true. I think the present generation of leaders, who have stuck in their heads the ideal “if it saves one child it is worth it”, will have to be replaced by those who have experienced a different narrative, one that places weight on evidence, rather than gut reaction, before anything changes. Just look at how intractable other irrational motivators like racism and sexism are in the US culture. Change will happen at a glacial pace. We have to get used to it.

  13. Robert

    Because a person is registered, no matter the actual threat, USMS will send an alert. And then place blame or responsibility upon the foreign country for the denial of entry. There is no due process here.

  14. A

    So, Just to be clear. I am hoping to pursue my career in audio engineering and music, upon completion of my parole in about 9 months. If I wish to travel to another country to work, I may not be able to? So all facets are prohibitive, including work related?

    • commenter1

      The US Government doesn’t care to investigate the purpose of your travel before sending a green notice so whether you are traveling for business or pleasure does not matter. The fact of the matter is that you will be prevented from entering a number of countries and the list of countries taking heed of this notice appears to be on the increase. There are countries where you will be able to travel but the list is getting smaller and there is no way to know for sure if you can enter the country without going on a plane yourself and flying there just to find out you will be turned back. The only thing good I can say about the International Megans Law bill(s) currently under consideration in the US Congress is that they appear to have a provision that would require the US Government to inform you if you will likely be turned away from your destination. Currently the US Government is doing no such service and people are spending the time/money to travel to other countries only to find an officer waiting at the airport to detain them and send them home on the next available flight.

  15. Doug

    In the past , I have been to , sent employees and Drilling equipment to Africa, Haties , and Mexico . on Humanitarian water well drilling projects .
    They won’t have to worry about me going there now !

  16. HH

    Janice ,

    Are there any movements towards a lawsuit regarding international travel ? I would be willing to donate financially to this cause.

    I also think is might be useful to start a discussion area for donations , how much you receive now , how much you need to receive to make more of a difference , how many individuals frequent the site , etc.

  17. barry

    I know that China has strict laws but has anyone traveled to Hong Kong?

  18. Drew

    I’m about to take a Royal Caribbean cruise to the Bahamas this coming April 2016. of course, I’m an RSO. Does anyone have experience or know for sure what the laws are or restrictions regarding taking such a cruise? Would I be able to get off the ship…. or even cruise in that matter?

    Janice, would you mind giving me your input as well?

    • jo

      I think there is a good chance you don’t even make it on the boat. Sorry.

      • Drew

        @Jo, thanks for replying. Do you have experience or just an opinion?

        • jo

          No, just from other stories I have read of people who have been turned away by the cruise line, likely not wanting the liability of some savage sex crazed maniac attacking children on their ship

  19. patience

    Everyone talks and talks and talks. Must be nice not to have anything to do but complain about stuff that will never change!

    • Craig

      patience, What are the choices do you have if you do nothing? I realize you are in a lot of pain, depressed which is an understatement and seem to have given up on life in general. But things do get better in time if you will only put some effort into changing. Damn man I lost everything I had, my home,job and in 2005 lost 2 daughters in a car accident. I was at the lowest point in my life,add probation, restrictions,fines and treatment cost out the azz, living in a small metal building because I did not want to live with the rest of my family at that time. I finally woke up one day and did not like what I was seeing, I had all the pity party I could stand. I cleaned up, starting looking very hard for a job no matter what it might be, and even worked for free at one job to prove to them if they would just give me a chance I would be the best I could. The years past,I worked hard,many days 10 to 12 hours a day 6 days a week. It became better each year,even under the stigma of being a RC. No life is not perfect but I have managed to pay my home and land off, pay for my vehicles and still have a decent life even under the persecution we deal with.I want change for all of us,I feel like once we have paid our debt we should be able to have our life back but that is not the case as of now and may never be. I will keep on living,fighting when I can, fish when I want and work for my family to have a better life. So stand up man, get out there and find a job, Go to the monthly meetings when you can, don’t ask what they can do for you, ask what you can do to help them with this fight. Be brave for your son. I am truly sorry for your lost, but nothing will bring back what you have lost, cherish the good memories you once had, but look and work towards the future. You are not the first person who has lost someone or something,that is life. If you do not like or agree with what I say then I am sorry and wish you the best or you can keep destroying your life, then we may see you at the other end.

  20. anonymously

    HR 1515 was renamed to mention other sex crimes than sex trafficking and taken out the part about reducing the demand for sex trafficking which proved ineffective in its objective because registrants have been denied travel for 2 years or so and the reduction in the demand for sex trafficking hasn’t materializerd or we would have heard about it and the success in reducing the demand would be attributed to the defacto version of IML.

  21. concerned registrant

    Well said, Craig.

  22. anonymously7

    “Copy and paste this and send it to all of us”
    God bless you!
    —————–
    Alert act now!
    The U.S. Senate passed International Megan’s Law with amendments and sent it back to the U.S. House of Representatives for approval.
    The Senate passed HR 515 formerly known as “International Megan’s Law” with another NEW title “InternationalMegan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders” and added a section about passports.

    Essentially, all current passports for folks CONVICTED of a sex offense/s MUST be reissued, with the words “SEX OFFENDER” prominently displayed on the passport. And all new passports for folks convicted of sex offenses will be issued with same wording.

    The Senate also added a section for appropriating funding ($6,000,000) for each of these years (2017-2019) to implement International Megan’s Law.

    Advocates and their families and others need to immediately contact their U.S. House Representatives and object to the entire IML bill (and concept), and any other similar bills that may arise.
    ————————

  23. H.Ling

    Will be taking a trip to HK in a few months. I have been to Hong Kong this past year without issues. I was wondering if i will have problems TRANSITING through China.

  24. Barre Flynn

    Has anyone had recent experience with travel to Norway. I need to go there for a week. The NYS Registry has no problem with my travel. I am a level 2 offender with a felony. Any help would be appreciated. I am aware of the free travel within western European countries and away that re-entry back into the USA can be horrible.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 *

.