The U.S. State Department issued a press release on Friday, October 27, that revealed both the wording and placement of a “unique identifier” to be added to the passports of some, but not all, registrants. According to that press release, the language “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1)” will be printed on the inside back cover of new passports issued to those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and currently required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction.
“It appears that the State Department press release may be in violation of federal law which requires agencies to issue regulations before making decisions such as the language and placement of a unique identifier on a registrant’s passport,” stated Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Additional research is required before a determination can be made about whether and how to legally challenge the State Department’s press release.”
The issue of a “unique identifier” for passports was initiated in the International Megan’s Law (IML), passed by Congress and signed by the President in February 2016. The IML requires the Secretary of State to add a “unique identifier” to newly issued passports for some, but not all, registrants. In addition, the IML allows, but does not require, the Secretary of State to revoke existing passports that do not contain a “unique identifier”.
The IML was challenged in federal district court in California in February 2016. In that case, the judge denied the request of seven plaintiffs to issue a Preliminary Injunction which could have stopped implementation of the IML. The seven plaintiffs included husbands of women who live in countries where they were denied entry, businessmen and the son of a man who lives in Iraq and would be killed if identified in that country as a registrant. The judge later granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case.
The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., requires agencies to issue regulations prior to implementing a new law. Normally, this process requires the issuance of proposed regulations followed by a public comment period and then issuance of a final regulation. Under extraordinary circumstances, an agency is allowed to issue a final regulation without first issuing a proposed rule and considering public comments. The State Department claimed extraordinary circumstances and issued a final regulation on September 2, 2016. The agency’s regulation, however, did not address the issue of a “unique identifier” for passports but instead focused upon the notification provisions of the IML. After the State Department issued its IML regulation, ACSOL submitted a formal petition to that regulation on September 8, 2016.
“The ACSOL board of directors will conduct a meeting on November 4 to discuss this important matter,” stated Bellucci. “The board will announce the results of its meeting no later than November 6.”
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/news/passports-international-megans-law.html
The only thing missing from a sex offenders life is the gas chamber when comparing these laws to how the Jews were treated.
So much for you can’t be forced to carry the governments message! I was just wondering what the need for this is considering the low recidivism rate???
Reading the government’s press release, in addition to getting instantly deported from an alert sent by the US government and returned to the US, that now your existing passport will likely be confiscated at secondary inspection if your passport is deemed “non complaint.”
Very dangerous to travel now…..
Since the law is more about technicalities than anything else, how would this apply to those with an expungement and dismissal (California’s 1203.4 is not a traditional expungement, but rather a dismissal of your conviction)? On paper they have no conviction but still have to register.
Not only were agencies required to issue regulations before making decisions such as the language and placement of a unique identifier on a registrant’s passport, they were REQUIRED to do so after 90 (NINETY) days from the law’s passage (May 2016).
I want to see what happens to a registrant giving 20 instead of 21 days notice. Why does the government get to violate its own (strict liability) laws???
The Third Reich rises again…this time in The United States of America. I sadly gave six years of my life in the armed forces…what a fool I was.
This places many individuals in a unique situation of lying on behalf of the Federal Government. I was granted a 1203.4 and was relieved of the associated penalties and disabilities. The state of California set aside my conviction in 1997. I am no longer considered ‘convicted’. My religious and personal beliefs, as well as a healthy recovery from devious thinking, help prevent me from lying, therefore, I will not apply for a passport once mine expires.
How discouraging! Registrants often want nothing more than a chance to assimilate back into productive society, and laws like this make it so completely difficult. I wonder, with recent SCOTUS rulings and various rulings at the State levels, if SORNA has been determined punitive and therefore unconstitutional, wouldn’t the laws like AWA and IML also be punitive and unconstitutional since they are largely based on SORNA? If it can be shown that recidivism is not “frightening and high”, wouldn’t that make these laws susceptible to a challenge?
This law, when employed in conjunction with the AWA basically make affected registrants prisoners and impede our human rights as to a right to start a family. If this stands, I will most likely not be able to visit my fiance, nor will I be allowed to bring her here because of the AWA. Essentially, we are being told that if we want to start a family or get married, we better focus on US citizens ONLY. No other group of citizens are limited in this way. In the meantime, the foreign spouses and fiances are being punished when they’ve done nothing at all to receive such treatment. In Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the SCOTUS said that intimate decisions about family and our existence are beyond the realm of the state, but here they are contradicting their ruling.
Somehow, we must use this for the positive. We can use this attention to our benefit… somehow. I’m not sure how, but we must find the effective method to getting our message out. Positive thinking aside, this *really* stinks.
Can someone please post again (cite source) where the Federal law states US RC passports are only good for one year? I have read this is the situation on another board but would like confirmation here. Are the costs the same regardless of valid passport duration, e.g. one year vs ten years? Thanks.
If you haven’t, I highly recommend actually reading the applicable laws. That way, the “I wasn’t convicted,” “I was expunged,” and similar postings will end.
Simply put, IML uses the definition of sex offender that exists in 34 USC 21503(f). That Section says:
In this section, the term “sex offender” means—
(1) a covered sex offender; or
(2) an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction or included in the National Sex Offender Registry, on the basis of an offense against a minor.”
—–
The key phrasing is in (2). In short, anyone required to register on the basis of an offense against a minor, is subject to IML. It says nothing about conviction, says nothing about expungement, nothing about pardons. It says only if required to register based on an *offense.* So, unless you’re no longer required to register, you’re subject to IML if your offense–regardless it’s current status–was against a minor. Period.
Wow this is disturbing. I remember going to a meeting in 2016 and Janice said something about this being potentially challenged in the Ninth Circuit. Anyone have any updates or input to this issue currently in the Ninth?
So I would really like to hear an explanation of why others convicted of various crimes don’t have unique identifiers on their passports. For example, “This individual has convicted been convicted of possessing, manufacturing, or distributing drugs.”; “This individual has been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon….. illegal gang-related activities…. domestic abuse…. burglary….. identity theft.” ???
Well, it looks like I won’t be getting my passport until after I’m off the registry in 2020 (I’m filing for the CoR. I’m not going to wait for the tiered registry in 2011).
There are a lot of problems with this.
1. What where does that leave those with an expunged record who have to continue registering? It says “was convicted of a sex offense against a minor AND is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1)” Well, many RCs no longer have a conviction but still have to register.
2. Isn’t there an equal protection issue here? The victim in my case, and quite possibly many other cases considering teens are getting punished, was 17. In 30 states, my charge isn’t even a crime because their age of consent is 16-17. It isn’t even a crime in ALL of the world since consent can be anywhere from 12 (Mexico) to 16.
3. Wouldn’t this be compelled speech for those who are NOT publicly listed in their own state jurisdictions?
So what does “required to register in any jurisdiction” mean? I suspect that in my case, if I moved from Florida to say Vermont, I would still have the Mark of the Beast because even though I would no longer be required to “register” in Florida, I would still be on the Florida website and i would still be required to register in my state of conviction whenever I returned. My concern is will they interpret this as ‘required to registry in ANY jurisdiction” even if you are no longer required to register where you live or where you were convicted? Does a person who was convicted and still lives in a jurisdiction that is “noncompliant” with the AWA and it no longer required to register still qualify as they could be required to “register” with the Feds? This is not without precedent. There is at least one state where the ATF declared that their pardon was not a REAL pardon for purposes of Federal firearms rights restoration. My fear is that the DOS, like pretty much every other government agency, will interpret this in a manner to include the largest number of people possible.
At State level or would the crime be considered at federal as well, another words possession of child pornography. Is that a ‘“The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1)”’
The unique identifier will endanger travellers and this violates not only our constitution but human rights too. The IML is nothing more than requirement of a target being painted on the backs of registrants because of what they’ve done, based on junk science and “frightening high recidivism rates” just to scare people and using travel patterns to predict future crime just to put foreign government agencies on alert for nothing. If the federal government is preventing covered registrants from traveling, then why do they even let registered citizens travel but require notification which is nothing more than a setup of denial of entry, instead of banning registered citizens from ever traveling overseas? Does the IML make any sense?
Beginning to get discouraged. We take a step or two forward and they hammer us back. I really don’t want to live the rest of my life like this.
The big question I have is, how will this affect non child related registrants? I believe many countries have banned registrants, but does this only apply to child related offenses? (Don’t respond unless your truly aware)
If they can add an ‘identifier’ on any passports it is time to stop what is happening – this is Nazi Germany all over again – we should not be marking any citizens because if it can happen to one it can happen to any. Will they have identifiers placed on anyone with a felony, maybe Christians, or Muslims, maybe gays? What stops them from passing a law to put it on anyone they want? I don’t want my supposed freedom taken further away and adding an identifier on any passport is the step to doing just that. Wake up America!
I am sure wife beaters, child abusers and child murderers will also have this unique identifier as well, right?
Many people who participate on this forum talk about “Incrementalism” as being the way to ultimately succeed against these tyrants. While that concept may not be wrong, it’s important to remember that the other side does the exact same thing. The only difference is that they have the power to make serious and rapid change, and they have the power of fear on their side. Through fear, they can get people, including Supreme Court Judges, to participate in something as horrible as this. I have said several times that these identifiers will eventually be placed on every piece of ID any of us have. And I personally believe that surgically implanted RFID tags are right around the corner. They will start with those on probation and parole. Then they will expand it to all of us. Because hey” It’s just monitoring, right? The only way to deal with Nazi tactics is to treat them as just that; Nazi tactics. And once that decision is made, we can’t go back. We have to fight these pukes. We have to think of them the same way they think of us. We have to destroy the registry, nationwide, through the Supreme Court. If we don’t, the same incrementalism that some people think will amend the 290 law back in our favor over the next three years will ultimately destroy every single one of us. It’s coming. The only choices we have are simple: Are we going to fight or not? If the answer is yes, start now. Right now. Make it the purpose for every single thing you do, ever single day. If the answer is no, just crawl under the next rock you find and stay there until you die.
I’m trying to remember: Do immigration officers look at the back page of passport? I think it is likely that the back cover is what is swiped through the reader. There is a bar code for the passport number there. If that is the case, then the border guards are sure to see the identifier.
I’ve heard that registrants are being turned away from both Jamaica and India recently.
Keep in mind many states will require a US passport for ALL travel, even domestically, because their state ID cards aren’t up to snuff, by October 10, 2018. This currently includes California. If any further action is being considered for challenging the passport inclusion, make sure this fact is part of the record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
Well, isn’t this special. I have lived outside the USA for the last 10 years and have a new life. I own my home, I have residency. And now, uncle Sam wants to fuck up my life from afar.