The State Department is threatening to take away the passports of certain sex offenders.
Federal law requires registered sex offenders to display a unique mark on their passports to notify officials in foreign governments when they travel abroad. Passports that do not contain the mark could be confiscated, the State Department said Thursday. Full Article
Related
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-21087.pdf
Janice Bellucci comment: According to the article, the IML case was dismissed which is not true. The article links to an article from April 2016 which correctly reported that our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was denied, but not that the case was dismissed.
But yet the Government want’s me to believe that ISIS is my Enemy.
I wonder when the 1st report will roll-in about someone who had their passport confiscated.
Well, it seems that the hammer has finally fallen on whatever was left of our freedom to move about the country. I wonder what’s next? Is the government planning on building islands like China is doing, then rounding up all RSO’s and exiling us to those islands. The punishment continues. I guess the next thing is to separate us from family and friends and tell us we have no right to live.
Remember; If you are not treated like other citizens, you are not a citizen and you owe the United States no loyalty. We are not wanted, welcome or considered humans by our enemies and we are fools to call or consider ourselves Americans.
So is this what we expected?
What now? My passport has six years before it expires. What do I do now?
Do I renew it now? Wait for a notice from the State Department?
I see one issue with the text of the final rule right off the bat.
It makes a reference to Section 3 IML as 42 USC 16935a to define a covered sex offender for the purpose of the identifier, however the passport provision of the IML contains its own definition of sex offender in Section 8.(c) which is less broad than in Section 3. Section 8(c) says that an invididual must currently be required to register, whereas Section 3 is a broader definition covering the rest of the IML, most notably the notification provision.
This a key distinction and contsruction error in the final rule, and unless caught and corrected, would subject many more people to the passport identifier than as currently defined in the IML
I’m confused
It’s been over 6 months since the state department issued the edict. They still haven’t come up with the new passports with the pretty little design. So how can the state dept threaten to take away the passports of registrants when they have yet come up with the alternative? Just telling registrants to hand over their old passports without replacing them with the alternative is fringing on a person’s constitutional right to travel. Am I missing something here? Are the new passports with the new design already out?
Wtf does this mean? Total bs governmental speak. We do a lot of pontificating in the forum and what we really need to do is to raise a lot more money for legal action. While we have gotten a few favorable rulings, the draconian laws keep on piling up. All of this IML BS, the whole process of no discussion and now the state department waves off all public comments is beyond reason. More people need to contribute what they can.
So does this mean that they now have an identifier for the passport? Or does it just mean that for now the government will restrict travel? What a great country that we live in. C. Kapearnic I am with you.
So after paying the government for an overpriced passport, they are going to make them invalid before their expiration date that was paid for. Sounds like a civil contract case to me. Are refunds being offered?
As stated in article: “The State Department skipped the public comment period under the “good cause” provision that allows for regulations of particular importance that serve the public interest to be published more quickly.
“The Department believes that public comment on this rulemaking would be unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest,” it wrote.” – Just ignore the fact that 850,000 registered citizens and their families would have liked the opportunity for public comment.
In fact very few politicians were there for the voice only vote. This was certainly one of the worst travesties our politicians have ever done to their citizens.
This means a sex offender can’t get a passport.
“The new § 51.60(g) requires denial of a passport card to an individual who is a covered sex offender as described in 42 U.S.C. 16935a”
12 comments on this site were it won’t do any good. A couple good comments on the article’s site from two people who actually knew what they are talking about. The rest were blather. We have to do better than this.
The last sentence of the rule change says: “(g) The Department shall not issue a passport card to an applicant who is a covered sex offender as defined in 42 U.S.C. 16935a.”
Does this mean no passports? This would be the best decision for us, for it is more outrageous and easier to fight as unconstitutional.
It was my understanding that the Government was supposed to issue some type of Guidance to Congress within a certain time-frame.
I know that this was posted on a different Thread, and I can research that.
Even Janice indicated that she too was waiting for the Government’s Guidance regarding IML.
Did they ever issue the guidance?
How can the State Dept. issue this Rule, without following through with the Guidance Directive, that was written into the Law, and that was supposed to be issued to Congress?
I myself always try to be positive, to move on, pay my taxes etc BUT this is the last straw, I have no country, just a place I live caring for my family, SCREW THIS, SCREW ALL these lawmakers, Next Plan for 850,000 strong?
Of course the devil is in the details. The rule refers to “covered sex offender” as defined by 42 u.s.c. 16935a, but 22 u.s.c 212b defines “covered sex offender” as defined by 42u.s.c 16935b(f) AND required to register in “any jurisdiction”. The rule includes those who are no longer required to register in their state where the statute does not. Seems like it goes further than the law allows.
Btw, these definitions only apply to those who have minors as their victim.
Janice, or another attorney, will need to provide interpretation.
I think the 6th circuit would have something to say about this. Regulatory as seen in the eyes of lawmakers but clearly punitive as it’s designed to prevent us from traveling. I have faith smart justices will strike this whole iml down. These over the top absurd laws actually help us.
This is a shortened version of the important points as stated at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
As per § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (currently codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185), it is unlawful for a United States citizen to enter or exit the United States without a valid United States passport.
As per Haig v. Agee and the Passport Act of 1926 (currently codified at 22 U.S.C. § 211a et seq.), the Presidential administration may deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time. The Secretary of State has historically in times of peace refused passports for one of two reasons, citizenship or loyalty, and criminal conduct or when the applicant was seeking to “escape the toils of law.”
In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport to an American citizen based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism (personal restrictions/national security). Although the Court did not reach the question of constitutionality in this case, the Court, in an opinion by Justice William O. Douglas, held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process:
The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. If that “liberty” is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Restrictions as punishment;
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), codified at 42 USC 652(k), saw the beginning of restrictions on freedom of movement as a punishment for child support debtors. Constitutional challenges to these restrictions have thus far failed in Weinstein v. Albright and Eunique v. Powell. Federal Appeals Courts in the Second and Ninth Circuits, although expressing due process concerns, have held that collection of child support is an important government interest, that the “right to travel internationally was not a fundamental right” and that laws restricting this right need not pass strict scrutiny. A number of constitutional scholars and advocates for reform strongly oppose restricting the human right to travel to a person who has committed no crime, and assert that the practice violates basic constitutional rights Similarly, anyone claimed to be in arrears on child support can have certain types of vehicular driver’s license revoked or suspended, severely restricting their freedom to travel. Critics point to cases where the lapse in support payments was caused by loss of employment yet the response of revoking the right to freely travel by car further impedes the ability to resume payments by limiting the ability to find employment and travel to a workplace.
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name given to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (In 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill has become an international law, to be followed by all).
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
(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 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incorporates this right into treaty law:
(1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or “morals” or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
(4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Regardless of the constitutionality of laws passed post-9/11 with respect to freedom of movement being a privilege, all U.S. citizens have the right to travel or move within and between the 50 states without the requirement of submitting to a search of one’s person or property prior to travel or movement.
I thought some might find this all informative.
Devastating. I will no longer be able to be with my wife and family.
I read the new IML passport identifier law. I specifically remember it saying covered sex offender as someone who currently is required to register. If the state dept is saying something else about people off the list still have to have the identifier, I”m curious where this info is at. And I do know the offense had to be against a minor but still, it includes people off the list?
If registrants can no longer get a passport card, that throws a wrench in my ideal about traveling in Europe and the few other countries that still let in registrants. In the travel forums I’ve visited, often times American travelers use a passport card for hotels, hostels, rental cars and etc. It’s cheap and easy to carry around but the passport book is still used when crossing borders. EU countries will probably still continue to allow registrants in but a passport book with a marked identifier would need to be shown as ID inside the country. That’s if it’s true passport cards won’t be issued to registrants. Call me a conspiracist. But it appears the state department anticipated this loophole. Since they couldn’t fit a large scarlet letter on the card, and doing it biometrically would defeat the purpose of “shaming” the registrant, they just won’t issue cards at all. But since registrants can still get the passport book with the identifier, the state dept believes they’re operating within constitutional guidelines.
……….I still think it could be challenged on equal protection because some American citizens have access to the card while others don’t
Great–first a group of congress types get together and use an anonymous small subset of congress to approve this and now there will be no public discourse of it–talking about my representation and constitutional guarantees being stripped of me!
They know this doesn’t pass the sniff test that’s why they’re doing it in this manner–how could a registered citizen on their own afford to take on such a legal challenge to this??
may the federal government and all those who comprise it rot in hell!
I’ll wait for Janice’s response after she or her team contact the listed person at the Department of State to ask how they plan on enforcing this when there is still no Unique Identifier:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Traub, Office of Legal
Affairs, Passport Services, (202) 485-6500.
I don’t know if they will answer the question if just any one of us non-lawyers calls..
seems like they made a passport for RC’s a take it or leave it proposition–they clearly state authority to deny and revoke the passport of an RC, but at the same4 time consent to issue one if it has the identifier. This isn’t even equal treatment under the law as to whom passports wont be issued to–in the case of a person owing back taxes-they get a review and certification by the Treasury dept. RC’s get nothing!!! no due process of any sorts. At a minimum that is a legal challenge.
This is what needs to be attacked: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section16935&num=0&edition=prelim
My expired passport has been sitting on my desk for a few months now. I’ve intended to renew but with no travel plans pending I’ve lacked the need. I wonder if I should test it out to see if they’ll renew it, or save the time, money and effort and see what becomes of this latest $h1t show?