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.
Thank you for your comments everyone. After conducting initial research, it appears that the “final” regulation must be challenged for at least three reasons. First, it fails to include “a brief statement of reasons” for not issuing a proposed regulation before issuing a final regulations. Second, it is broader than the IML because it denies passport CARDS to affected registrants. Third, it refers to the wrong definition of covered registrant in some sections. We WILL challenge this “final” regulation through the appropriate administrative process and/or a lawsuit.
Has anybody actually read HR 515? People her are saying that a RSOL cannot get a passport. I have read HR 515 all the way through You can get one but with the Government Mark. And it does say that “covered sex offenders” will have the identifier whether you are a registrant or not. It also says the if you are no longer required to register (like myself) you will be able to contact the Angel Watch Center to let them know that you are no longer required to register and in return the Center will notify the State Dept that they can reissue your passport without the identifier. This is what I read in HR 515. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I called the phone number provided in the text (Office of Legal Affairs, Passport Services) of the Public Notice to see what the situation was. I was hoping to find out what the article meant by “Passports that do not contain the mark could be confiscated.” Would they automatically confiscate if the passport was used? Would they issue revocation letters (required by statute if a passport is revoked), or would this be applied by some type of standard on a case by case basis. Or was travel under a passport lacking the mark just a crap shoot?
I was also hoping to learn the steps necessary to obtain a compliant passport, as I have travel scheduled in the coming months and don’t want to take chances.
No surprise…the staff in the Office of Legal Affairs had absolutely no idea or information. The woman I spoke with was as surprised as me that this happened with no notice, no information, and no avenue for further action. I was told that she would research and get back to me.
And just now I followed up with a quick phone call. My concern was forwarded to an attorney on their staff for followup. Apparently they issued the rule without having all the necessary pieces in place for compliance.
I’ll post again if/when I hear something more definitive regarding implementation and/or how to comply.
This is just ridiculous.
ever hurd of HR 645 ?
It was my understanding that the Government was supposed to issue some type of Guidance to Congress within a certain time-frame.
This was part of a previous Thread.
Even Janice indicated that she too was waiting for the Government’s Guidance regarding IML.
Did they ever issue the guidance?
Is this Final Rule supposed to be the Guidance?
How can the State Dept. issue this Final Rule, without following through with the Guidance Directive, that was written into the Law, and that was supposed to be issued to Congress?
What did I miss? I thought there was an attempt to get an injunction to stop implementation of the identifier, but it was rejected because the identifier had not yet been created. I thought the court and Janice were supposed to receive this information when it was created. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but if this is being done now doesn’t that open up again to getting the injunction?
I don’t understand what went wrong here. This is the government we’re working with to craft fair rules for us. Surely this must be some mistake. They’re the government and they’re here to help.
Do you think we can fight this on the grounds of retroactive punishment .?
They can’t get it right, and they reported on it.
http://thehill.com/regulation/294085-new-regs-for-friday-passports-hearing-aids-efficiency
“Under the new rules, the State Department will block sex offenders and people who own “seriously delinquent tax debt” from obtaining a passport.
The rules go into effect immediately.”
WRONG.
Separation of powers step in…
Separation of powers step in.
The judge in this current iml matter to amend plaintiff’s complaint must now really allow to amend with this latest news.
Fundamental rights are at issue and can be clearly presented to the judge so she will see the travesty and atrocity this does to the Constitution and Free Americans.
Seems like we need someone in the 6th Circuit to file a new case on this one. Perhaps we’d have a better chance in that courtroom? Must be someone out there with an affected passport.
They still keep it a mystery what this unique identifier will look like! Funny but that is the major issue in our IML action! Or they intentionally have done this to mute that point for lawsuit purposes; seems they are haphazardly implementing this this–even protecting members of congress from going on record by keeping it out of committees, etc..
Attack the process that got us here! seems those facts would be easier to argue!!
Ssh talking about a government attempt to gain the will of some by ignoring process and law, keeping people and the public silenced! More than IML perhaps this should be the lawsuit–and who said we dont have a corrupt government??? this is what corruption looks like!
Attack the process that got us here! seems those facts would be easier to argue!!
I think it is time that we start preparing another case, this time not against the United States government, and not to be fought in American courtrooms. The time is now to start preparing documentation of our persecution to present as evidence that we should qualify for asylum abroad.
It may well be the only hope we have left of starting over.
Persecution based on membership of a particular social group is one of the grounds to be considered a refugee. But we would have to fight the United States’ designation as a “safe” country. Many of us are being persecuted heavily for relatively “minor” acts (no pun intended). We are discriminated against in employment, in housing, and oftentimes by the same government that is responsible for protecting our rights. We no longer have the right to travel. Sure, technically, we can travel, providing we give them a 21 day notice so they have time to do everything in their power to prevent our departure.
Even if I accept that the argument that they are NOT preventing me from traveling. I don’t have the right to travel TODAY, or TOMORROW. I don’t have the right to spontaneous travel. I don’t have the right to travel two days from now, nor 20 days from now, because the law says I must give 21 days notice. Something that did not apply when I was convicted. So from now until 21 days from now, I have no right to travel.
The right may not be “fundamental,” but taking it away is most certainly “punishment,” and they are taking away my right to travel for 21 days at a time. This is especially burdensome, as I live in a border state, and could drive to the Canadian border within three hours of time. Canada may or may not let me in, but that is their choice, and completely irrelevant to my rights as US citizen.
Now that FAA will not accept California ID
California RC not not be able to board airplane because California D.L. are not approved as “REAL ID”. You will need a passport to board an airplane. From what I understand., RSO still can board airplane but it gotta get harder if the airline wants to deny rso from boardign their planes.
Are all the tiers from 42 U.S.C. 16935a, covered under this law? Or just specific tiers? I havent read enough to understand if EVERY registrant is impacted or just certain tiers.
I’m sorry Mr. Cool, but I need some citation or link to this statement by you:
“California RC not not be able to board airplane because California D.L. are not approved as “REAL ID”. You will need a passport to board an airplane.”
I have not seen this published anywhere….and this would seem to be a fairly radical departure by the…FAA? This would seem to be a Homeland Security rule, if one exists….
Regardless who’s rule this is, we would all appreciate if we could review the information that you base this statement on.
Thanks,
Best Wishes, James
My flight to Europe departs in two weeks. Is the State Department going to revoke & reissue my existing passport? What will their “unique identifier” look like? Swastika? Pentagram? Mr. Yuck sticker? I am contacting them directly to get answers. And I will share with you whatever I learn.
I spoke with two people* at the State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs this morning. I was told they have been receiving a lot of calls about IML.
(They said someone would get back to me.)
Even though I am not a registrant anymore, according to IML I am still considered “covered”. My wife and two young girls live in another country and are not allowed here in the States because of the Adam Walsh Act. I just came back from seeing my family and it was smooth sailing through immigration in San Francisco. If my passport has an identifier on it I will never be able to see my children again. And this disgusting country could care less. I wonder why Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother is keeping quiet about this when she knows it’s wrong. Since IML she hasn’t grandstand with the idiot Chris Smith. And the US preaches to other countries about human rights and family values when we have none. Like I have said, even though I was taken off the registry in New York I still don’t feel relieved.
I just faxed a letter to the Mr. David Donahue, signer of the Public Notice, at the State Department. (Awaiting a reply, but not holding my breath.)
I’m sure they assumed this was a no-brained that they could shackle us with and no one would object. After all, “The Department believes that public comment on this rulemaking would be unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest.” Apparently, they are receiving their “public comment” whether they like it or not! 😠
I would much rather hear more about what Janice means by:
“After conducting initial research, it appears that the “final” regulation must be challenged”
And then the next day she said:
“In order to challenge the IML, plaintiffs will be needed especially those who live in LA County”
Which is it? The existing challenge to IML or a new challenge to the Final Regulation?
PK, we need to relentlessly fight back against their tyranny on every front. With phone calls. With faxes. With letters. With lawsuits in local courts AND lawsuits in federal courts. These lawmakers and bureaucrats need to be made aware that we will fight back and not passively accept their shackles.
I hear two things: Freedom of movement is a constitutional right and freedom of movement is not a constitutional right. I’m inclined to think it is a right within American borders but what about internationally? If it isn’t a right internationally, why does the state dept specifically not ban travel to Cuba because it’s unconstitutional but they get around this by saying American citizens can’t spend US dollars there? Plus there was a case ( I think the 50s) when the US govt tried to prevent a citizen from attending a world communism conference in Paris but SCOTUS struck down the ban as unconstitutional under the freedom of movement clause. Seems like there’s some provision to prevent Americans who engaged in criminal acts from traveling but just being on the registry isn’t a criminal act. It’s ‘administrative’ according to the US govt. And even ones off the registry, the state dept is now trying to stop issuing passport cards to citizens that commited crimes against minors. And let’s say the US govt does have the right to restrict travel of registrants due to national security or criminality issues, other citizens that commited crimes like murder and car jacking don’t have their rights of international travel restricted. So is the equal protection clause being violated when some who formerly commited crimes are allowed to travel while others who committed another category of crime are not? So much confusion and so much stuff that needs to be cleared up in the courts
‘GOT ANSWERS!! Good morning.
I have just spoken with an official at the U.S. State Department’s Office of Passport Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement. He said that the new IML passport rules will not officially take effect until the State Department responds back to Congress informing them that the law (rules) are ready to be implemented. He said that will take some time to do – November at very the earliest, more likely December or January.
He also said that if someone’s passport is being revoked, that individual will receive official written notification from the State Department.
Finally, he said to keep checking the Passport Services website as that will have updated information as it becomes available.
Bon santé et bon voyage!