ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 21 Phone Meeting Recording Uploaded
Oct 19 – LA, Nov 16 – Sacramento, Dec 14 – Phone | details

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

General News

International Travel 2019

We have updated our main International Travel section. It features:

  1. List of Schengen Nations (allowing entry to registrants);
  2. Resources (including a CA DOJ Travel Notification Form); and
  3. User Submitted Travel Reports.

This post is linked from the Main Menu at the top of the site.

1. The 26 Schengen Nations (which allow registrants to visit)

As an agreement, Schengen was signed among the five out of ten countries of the European Union members back then, on the 14th June 1985. Under the Schengen agreement, travelling from one Schengen country to another is done without any passport and immigration controls or any other formalities previously required.

Czech republic





Note: US Citizens are visa exempt when visiting the Schengen area for up to 90 days in a 180 day period (List of Countries, Section B or map).  The European Commission is proposing creating a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) for such travelers, beginning in 2021 – which may or may not take criminal convictions into account. ETIAS Fact Sheet April 2018July 2018

2. Resources

3. NEW: User Submitted Travel Reports

If you have traveled internationally post-IML we invite you to share your travel experience on the form below. Submissions will be published as a separate post with opportunity for targeted / country specific discussion.

If you have already filled out our previous (unpublished) travel form, please do so again here for publication.

Report your Travel Experience:

International Travel

Personal Info

for follow-up info or answers in comments. Your regular user name or other.
for possible follow-up - not published

Registration Info

Currently Registered *
Listed on Public Website

Travel Info

Entry was *


Visa Required *
Visa Granted

Advance Notice

Adv. Notice Provided *
Req. by State Law *
how, when, where, etc

Offense Info

Offense Level *
Conv. expunged *
Offense inv Minor *
Passport Identifier *

Comment / Additional Information

Join the discussion

  1. Escape from FL

    About 25 years ago, there was a case in Florida in which an adult male was incarcerated for his relationship with a teenage boy. They remained in contact and planned an escape. The teen, who was by then a young man, took helicopter flying lessons, stole a helicopter, flew into the prison yard, picked up his guy, and flew off!
    (Sadly, the LEOs did ultimately catch up with them and then they both went back to prison.)

  2. David (Yes, yet another David!)

    🇫🇷 A postcard from France 🇫🇷
    Bonjour à tous! I just arrived in France yesterday at CDG Airport. I have an IML-notification U.S. Passport, but the French border control officer did not flip to the special notice page. She barely glanced at my passport and didn’t even look up to see if the person handing her the passport was the same as the one in the passport photo!
    (I guess Angel Watch’s “URGENT PRIORITY; HIGH IMPORTANCE” notice was unimportant to the French Border Police.)
    🇫🇷 Vive la France! Vive la république! 🇫🇷

  3. Illinois Contact

    Anyone been to or try to visit Vietnam lately? It’s shows on the RTAG Matrix as having turned away sex offenders, but I just wonder if anyone has any recent experience.

    • TS

      @IL contact

      What did you do about your 21 day or 3-day notification to the Illinois State Police prior to your trip to Portugal recently? We all would like to know how that would went for you.

  4. Illinois Contact

    Everything went very very smoothly.

    A month before leaving I called the head of the Illinois State Police SOR Unit Tracy Morgan (217/785-0653) and asked her what to do, since my local police department in Chicago refused to take a notification more than three days before leaving, the officer saying that he had never heard of the 21-day notice required by IML. Morgan told me that the 21-day notice is “not the law” in non-SORNA compliant Illinois and that I was to follow the Illinois regulation of three days in advance notice. She assured me that no one from Illinois who does this has ever had any problem with federal marshals, etc.

    I did exactly that, boarded the plane for Portugal, breezed through customs in Porto, traveled back to O’hare airport, where I got the expected X on my passport scan, but had a very light questioning (“Where are you traveling from”) and made it to baggage claim before my bags came out. Also, no baggage search: officer at that desk asked my social number, and replied go out that door and have a nice day.

    (Are they getting easier, or was I just lucky?)

    I will now return to local police (within three days of arriving home) and change address from Portugal to my home in Chicago.

    I’m not giving advice to anyone, just reporting what happened to me. At any rate this process is specific to Illinois, and I have no idea if it also applies to other non-SORNA states.

    I’m now very encouraged about returning to Europe which seems to be easy peasy, and am planning a trip with my wife to Norway next summer.

    I only asked about Vietnam for very future planning. I know it’s a long shot and I certainly don’t want to take a 14-hour flight and be turned away. I’ll probably stick to Schengen countries — many beautiful and welcoming places to go.

    • TS

      @IL Contact

      Thank you for your trip summary going out and back through security in Chicago O’Hare airport. Interesting the advice they gave you at higher headquarters. Maybe this shows the states do have their rights and the disparity is okay? Folks here will have to note this if they’re from compliant or non-compliant states.

      • SR @ TS

        The problem with state rights vs Fed is that state rights remain with the state solely. As soon as you leave the state whether to travel to a neighboring state or fly overseas, it becomes a Fed issue. It’s like pot being legal in one form or another in more than half the states but being Federally illegal. Technically, you can’t drive with pot between two neighboring legal states such as CA and OR, or how the Feds can charge you with CP even the age of the person in the picture might be legal in the state where you reside (anyone under 18 in a picture is CP by Federal law).

        The other travel issue that I see mentioned here but have no idea how to approach it to stay 100% compliant is needing to notify the Feds for any trip over 3 days. Like, you can be visiting NY where they have no visitor registration laws and you can stay there without doing anything for up to a month, but still technically need to let the Feds know within three days. I’m willing to bet that not only are vast, vast, majority of people not aware of this requirement (along with any visiting state requirements, as why would any of us off paper really think we need to do anything when going on vacation?), but even ones that do, don’t really know how to do it? To whom do you give this Federal notice to that you’re going to Hawaii for a week? Sure, you let your state know that you’re leaving for a while, but what about the Feds?

        It’s really insane that SCOTUS has yet to revisit this issue. What they ruled on in 2003 and what is now, is about as different as drawing with chalk on the board as a kid and programming modern video games with super computers. Staying fully complaint with all the laws, particularly when traveling, seems nearly impossible as you can’t even legally trust what your local PD as they’re completely immune in providing incorrect information, whether they know it or not.

        • TS


          Nice thinking here. The confusion you highlight is duly noted and certainly crazy.

          The only thing is you don’t notify the Feds for three days since they don’t take notifications directly from those who are needing to do a notification as noted in the SORNA process. (For the sake of discussion, we will skip the USVI direct to the Feds notification @AJ noted in the JE CNBC article recently since they are a territory, not a state.) The notification goes through the state or registering entity regardless for three days or international 21 day, where 21 day is noted as the process (except in IL as we see) but by default must be the way for three day too(?). If the state or registering entity does not tell the Feds of the three day notification, I guess the Feds and the states have an issue because the person hopefully notified the their registration office of the three day law and can prove their compliance with it.

          As a side, what is defined as a “residence” when this three day law is being complied with? Is traveling to HI and staying at the hotel for 9 days changing your residence if you have not worked to establish it as a residence, e.g. utility bill, insurance, voter registration, etc? Is doing a Griswold family vacation in the station wagon across the states for weeks changing your residence? You get the point.

        • AJ

          @SR & @TS:
          I believe we’re probably safe under the same logic addressed in this CA SC case:

          While one could be dragged into court for a violation, a court would probably throw it out.

    • AJ

      @Illinois Contact:
      “I will now return to local police (within three days of arriving home) and change address from Portugal to my home in Chicago.”
      Could you please expand on this? Why did you (have to?) change your address to Portugal? I don’t recall anyone else doing this unless actually moving to and fro.

      • SR @ AJ

        I believe, at least in CA, if your going to be gone from your home for more than 5 days, you technically need to register out your address as if you were moving. I can’t really point to what particular part of the law this is, but I know I’ve been told this by several people working within the system in one capacity or another. It’s one of the million rules that most don’t even know exists, let alone follows. Seems like majority of the rules that apply to us are not present on those annual forms that we initial. Going by just that form, you’re left with a ton of holes in what you’re actually have to do like that whole federal 3-day notification for travel across state lines. Learning all this is one of the things I do not like about regularly visiting this site. It’s nothing against this great site and people working for it, but I seem to constantly learn about the plethora of mines I previously was completely oblivious to as no one, at any point, provided me or seemingly anyone else with an actual guide. The fact that we seemingly never hear of people being prosecuted for missing one of these travel rules, is of little comfort to me. What little traveling I do do, I’m always filled with anxiety of having done something potentially wrong for whatever location I’m visiting.

      • Lake County

        AJ, That’s a very good question. He didn’t change his residency, he just went on vacation. Since most States don’t define what is residency other than a location you regularly reside for more than a certain number of days, then the dictionary definition would be used by default. Since he did not move his residence, why would he need to re-register upon returning home to his primary residence? At most, if the location he was traveling to required registration, then perhaps he would be required to de-register from that country. It’s time for the courts to interpret these mixed up rules.

      • Illinois Contact

        In Illinois if you leave your current address — to move permanently to a new address or go on vacation — it’s the same “change of address,” which you must register three days before moving and then register back home three days after returning.

        Here’s the rule: “Temporary absences for more than 3 days in a calendar year require you to register your new address.”

        • AJ

          @Illinois Contact:
          While I’m not doubting what you say, something seems out of sorts here.

          Having to register a “new address” doesn’t necessarily mean the abandonment of an “old” address. It could simply mean new as in “additional”, such as buying a snowbird condo or something. So while I could see IL requiring to you list you new–as in “also”–address, having you de-register and then re-register serves no purpose and achieves nothing. To me, “new address” is vague in its meaning. If I own property outside IL, do I have to de-register my (still current and correct) IL residence and “move” to my ex-IL property? This makes little, actually no, sense. Also, if I’ve already owned the property but am simply vacationing there, it’s not “new” in any sense–I’ve owned it for years!

        • TS


          Because they can. That’s all that matters. It’s an extra hurdle so it inflicts a little extra intended pain. Don’t expect skill and cunning to work when stupid will do.

        • Illinois Contact

          @AJ Yes, of course it makes no sense, as do most of the registration restrictions.

          First, there’s no “additional” address in the Illinois registry. You have one current residence address, which changes if you are anywhere else for more than three days.

          Technically, let’s say you live in Chicago and have a house at the beach in Michigan, and you spend four nights (more than three) at that house (and not in your house in Chicago), you have to go three days before leaving for Michigan to your local PD and register an “address change” to the house in Michigan, and then within three days of coming home return to the PD in Chicago and register an “address change” to your address at home in Chicago.

          I doubt that many SORs actually do this, we just kind of ignore the technicalities.

          I have had it explained to me that the rationale is that at least once a year everyone is supposed to (but not always) get a “compliance check” by a lone police officer who comes to your door and asks for your ID (if you’re home — what if your out at the grocery store?), and then says “Have a nice day” and leaves (hopefully not seen by your neighbors). They are usually polite and brief.

          So, you have a three-day window of “non compliance” if you’re away from your registered residence, and the officer (by weird chance) shows up. BUT, if the officer comes back and you’re still not at home after the three day period, you could theoretically be in violation. That’s why you have to register your “temporary” address, so the compliance officer will not show up at your door and find you’re not there. Because the registry says you are “our of state” (if in Michigan, for example, and you have so registered. I have checked when I have been away and yes, it does say that.

          Absurd? No doubt. And we have to gauge the liability of short trips away from home (and the trouble of registration — it typically takes at the better part of a full day at the CPD to register something as simple as an address change). My trigger is two weeks away, after which I would become nervous, and then I do register my “new address.”

        • Illinois Contact

          Two more thoughts:
          If I fly anywhere (as opposed to drive and certainly if abroad), I always register, since there will be a record of my out of state travel.
          And, the line I quoted (on September 24) is on the registration form which you initial.

        • TS

          Heaven forbid Illinois Contact or any person underneath the same legal paradigm they must follow has a longer than 3 days stay in a medical facility! I wonder if you were to register a medical facility as your residence because you’re there for longer than three days someone’s going to have a hissy fit.

        • Will Allen

          That’s criminal. That is treating a person as if he/she is on probation or parole. If you Register a home in Illinois and one anywhere else, it literally is none of their business where you are. Your homes are Registered. Their lies of “informing” your neighbors has been met. There is no other burden. Those scumbag criminals need to be hauled into court and burned alive.

          And this kind of nonsense is yet another great reason to never allow them to do “compliance checks” or speak to you other than when you are forced to, in writing and at their criminal location.

        • AJ

          @Illinois Contact:
          Thanks for the informative post regarding the (useless and ridiculous) rules for IL RCs. It makes me shake my head at the stupidity of how much work they’re creating for you (not that they care) and themselves (they probably still don’t care since they get paid and can’t get fired). Then again, having lived in IL for a number of years a number of years back, it doesn’t surprise me how messed up they’ve made it. Springfield has never been a shining example of legislative thought or action. Please also know I wasn’t at all doubting you copied the language verbatim–sadly, it didn’t even enter my mind that it could be such worthless text as that. Given what you said about there only being a place for a single property address, it mitigates the vagueness.

          Regarding the (poor, pitiful) lone TBL doing compliance checks. I guarantee you that unless s/he happens to come while I’m mowing, s/he will miss me every single time. (@Lake County: was it you who plays continuous Hide & Seek with the local TBLs? That still makes me chuckle and I’d love to hear any new tales.) And even if s/he comes while I’m mowing, I’ll exercise my constitutional right to retreat into my residence as soon as I see her/him. Mind you I won’t run into my house because courts claim running away is enough to raise reasonable suspicion…which in this case would mean s/he’ll also claim exigency and barge into the house.

          I get why people comply with the TBLs, but I will not. They prey on your fear of being outed, but in truth that’s a single-use weapon. I say screw them. Luckily for me, I live on a large enough parcel that even if they show up in a caravan of four SUVs, as they’ve done, nobody sees a thing–including the TBL who lives next door! (I have to imagine he knows of me and it probably boils his butt. That warms my heart a fair amount.)

        • CR

          “If I fly anywhere (as opposed to drive and certainly if abroad), I always register, since there will be a record of my out of state travel.”

          Don’t forget ALPR and facial recognition cameras.

        • Illinois Contact

          More gory details about registration in Illinois:

          When you go in to register (or change address or any details like phone number or employer, etc.) in Chicago, you are given a number and sit on a bench with 25 to 35 other men. The white number is for annual registrants, and there are not many of us. The blue numbers are for the homeless, and get this: they have to register EVERY WEEK! They are almost all down-and-out African-American men (totally racist system), and they have to spend most of the day, including getting to 35th Street and sitting for several hours waiting to be called, when they have to itemize every place they have slept during the previous seven days. Imagine that you are homeless and lucky enough to actually get a job, and have to tell the employer that you need to take a day off every week to renew your sex offender registration. That’s certainly a positive helpful step in rehabilitation and reintegration.

          For those like me on annual registration, the yearly fee is $100 (yes), but there’s way around that. I told you that if you visit away from your home address for more than three days you have to register your new address. When you register back home, your due-back date resets to one full year later, so you can keep doing this, and postpone indefinitely paying the fee.

          Bear in mind, this is all people who have fully served a sentence, no one on supervision, since they visit a probation/parole officer.

          Almost everyone in Illinois is lifetime registration, by statue, not part of your sentence, so there’s no way to make a deal or appeal. No tiers in this state. I marvel at the people complaining on this blog about the new tiered system in California. Would that we had a Janice Bellucci in Illinois.

          I was sentenced to probation for CP possession 13 years ago, and have been “free” for 10 years, but will be abiding by this insane regimen for the rest of my life. 77 now, so maybe not much time left.

  5. Illinois Contact

    Sorry, the name at the SOR Unit is Tracie Newton, and her email is

    I emailed her but got no reply, but she picked up the phone when I called and was very helpful with what I believe must be accurate information.

    • AJ

      @Illinois Contact:
      “I emailed her but got no reply, but she picked up the phone when I called…”
      That’s because she’d much rather give answers orally than in writing. Every bureaucrat (and many attorneys) operates that way.

      • TS

        The gov’t wants plausible deniability so verbally is best and cannot be referenced later unless recorded. The can’t be bothered to cite section, chapter, and verse in writing. Takes too much time.

  6. Harry

    I wonder when this IML and traveling stuff will be challenged? I am fed up with us not getting our day in court when ACLU rushes and helps illegals knowingly crossing into US daily.

    • TS


      Show on its face how IML is hurting you then you can file a suit just like anybody else.

      • Harry

        Is this not hurting you, TS? I am too poor to sue.

        • TS


          No, I don’t travel internationally currently. Because I don’t travel internationally (and don’t like the fact that some people get a marked page in the back of their passport book or the fact that you have to give notification), it is not hurting me. Therefore, I have no ability to raise a case to challenge it and show any harm.

          if you’ve been following here long enough you’ll know that a class action suit won’t get any traction anywhere. We’ve discussed long and hard here that there has to be a case on its face to show harm to particular individual as is the case in Millard v Rankin in Colorado.

          If you are too poor to sue, then you’re potentially too poor to travel internationally, then potentially have no ability to be harmed by it and thus, can’t present a case to challenge it in court.

        • Harry

          This is reply to TS ,apparently this site is stopping a reply directly. TS said, “If you are too poor to sue, then you’re potentially too poor to travel internationally, then potentially have no ability to be harmed by it and thus, can’t present a case to challenge it in court.” Is a cop out, rather a person can travel or not should not be the bar to get something challenged. The harm is done when the state says (by lying) only current class of peoples are discourage to travel because of marked passports, requirement to give advances, under penalty of law, and send out notices to destination that the traveler is there to rape children. I am angry that the so-call legal professionals can not or will not deal with this. Yet, the same legal professionals will run and bend over backwards to help illegals come in this Country.

        • Will Allen

          In the past I have walked into an airport before, looked at the various destinations on the display, and picked the one I wanted to go to and did. I should be able to do that today. I think I can do that today, but how do I notify the criminal regime? I suppose just call them on the phone. What if it is 9 PM at night? I think leave a message or e-mail. That MUST be allowed or I am suffering harm right now.

          Having said that, notifying ANYONE about travel that I plan or do is not acceptable. I must retaliate for that every single time and I do.

        • TS


          No cop out. No one is discouraged from traveling just because they have a page in the back of their passport book with certain verbiage passed by Congress to be put in there. No one is discouraged from traveling with advance notification being required. No one is being discouraged for traveling with notifications being presented overseas (or being told what you intend to do while overseas, so your criminal note is a touch far-fetched). There’s no discouragement by the government from traveling because that would be illegal as we’ve discussed here previously.
          The discouragement is within the person who wants to travel and lets them win by not traveling with these items in place. In the end, the harm is on themselves, not from the government who is not harming you because no discouragement is taking place. When you can show these have been verifiably harmful to you, then you will have a case which you can challenge the law.

          I also understand your frustration about the current political environment where those who are trying to get into this country are helped more than those who’re already here in this country. You’re not the only one to think and feel that frustration.

        • Harry

          Response to TS: “No cop out. No one is discouraged from traveling just because they have a page in the back of their passport book with certain verbiage passed by Congress to be put in there. No one is discouraged from traveling with advance notification being required. No one is being discouraged for traveling with notifications being presented overseas (or being told what you intend to do while overseas, so your criminal note is a touch far-fetched). There’s no discouragement by the government from traveling because that would be illegal as we’ve discussed here previously.
          The discouragement is within the person who wants to travel and lets them win by not traveling with these items in place. In the end, the harm is on themselves, not from the government who is not harming you because no discouragement is taking place. When you can show these have been verifiably harmful to you, then you will have a case which you can challenge the law…” You are blowing gas, again and I am assuming the legal professionals are using this same reasoning to let RC suffer with this stuff and that is why they are not doing anything. The harm was done when such law was passed and it ONLY effects RCs. There are NO other person or criminal class this type of conditions is applied to.

        • TS


          No, not blowing gas, sunshine or smoke either, but telling you what is not happening. We are not a class of people who are discouraged from any travel. We are not a class of people. We are people who have the ability to travel under a process we don’t like and don’t feel is right (which I don’t like either). There is no harm because no harm has been verifiably demonstrated to anyone by the process in place. If there was, then a case should be filed to challenge the law.

          We are seeing by those who report here the back page of the passport is not being referred to upon entering countries. By that not happening, it really defeats the purpose of the notification as intended by law. Moving it away from the back page to any closer to the front for being seen could be construed as a no-no legally because it becomes closer to the Star of David label the Jews wore during the holocaust as we’ve discussed here. For the advance notifications, you would need to refer to the entering country’s policies on registry participants and why they would be turned back. By the way, if you think we are the only people who have provided advanced travel notification, I would tell you that flight manifests are already reviewed by people after they are finalized before the flight leaves which provides advanced notification anyway, even when others don’t do it through their local LE entity.

          Travel, Harry, travel. Go have fun, enjoy life, do it whether it is internationally or locally. Spend your money, if you can, in those countries who do welcome you without issue and let those countries that don’t know of their loss of your money there.

        • Will Allen


          For me, Registration chills travel. Registration affects travel. 21 day notice chills travel. There is harm. Easy for me. I probably won’t sue about it. But I will certainly retaliate for it, gravely if I am ever arrested.

        • AJ

          Whether you like it or not, @TS is spot on. Unless and until your exercising of a fundamental right or a liberty interest is chilled, harmed, prevented, etc., a court will not see harm. That’s how the courts run and rule, and with good reason. If they didn’t make someone come with some semblance of actual harm, there’s nothing to prevent a citizen for suing over every single law on the books! I don’t like driving 55. I think I’ll sue. I don’t like stopping at red lights. I think I’ll sue. These may seem petty examples, but they are also possible examples. Using the “harm criteria”, the courts avoid frivolous claims such as these.

          There are a few other things to consider here, too. First, a passport is technically owned by the USG and is merely issued to you for your use–just like a USG ID badge is issued to an employee for use but remains USG property. Second, the use of a passport, as it says inside, is a request to another country by our Secretary of State for the other country to allow you in. This is called diplomacy, and the “host” country can deny entry–this is true whether it’s @Harry or it’s a newly selected Ambassador. Third, POTUS has broad (and nearly exclusive) constitutional authority regarding diplomacy. Absent a clear demonstration of harm, a court will defer to the Executive Branch. Fourth, nowhere has the USG ever said a “class” of people are discouraged from travel–nor would it, since SCOTUS has already slapped it silly with that back in the 50s. Technically, the passport marking is a factual statement of information the USG wishes to share via a diplomatic document with another country. It has that right. We may not like it, but that’s how it lies.

          Now, that doesn’t mean it’s “game over” regarding the marker. If someone can show harm to a right or interest (which would be subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny) or can overcome the steep hill of Rational Basis review, a court could well order the USG to cease such activity. However right now there is no proof the text in the passport is doing anything to anyone. As @TS pointed out, nobody has reported it ever seeming to be read or noticed; in fact, quite the opposite has happened, with people saying it was NOT looked at. If it’s not being looked at, then it in and of itself is not causing any harm. BTW, avoiding stigma and/or embarrassment are not protected interests or rights.

          Finally, if you’re too poor to sue, you can request to proceed “in forma pauperis.” If approved, the court fees would be waived, the USMS would be your free process servers, and you charge ahead pro se.

          Actually, placing the text anywhere in or on a passport besides the Endorsements section probably is against some international agreement(s).

      • SR @ TS

        While the standard you describe may be true, particularly for us, it is pretty BS that the governments preemptive assumption that we’re guilty, thus requiring all these things, gets full traction, while we don’t get the same preemptive assumption of it causing us harm. This is basically being in criminal court of any matter with the presumption that you’re guilty because you’re here and it’s up to you to prove your innocence. That’s not how the justice system is being sold to the public. And just about everything we’re suffering, directly or not, comes down to the horrible 2003 ruling that anything RSO is “civil” in nature, thus doesn’t get the same protections that someone like Charles Manson would technically have extended to him.

        • TS


          I see your frustration and understand it. In this country, the basis was/is always innocent until proven guilty, which I will caveat within a court of law. I would caveat that even further by sitting in the court of public opinion everybody’s guilty until proven innocent whether it’s a military, federal, state, county, territorial, reservation, or city court.

          Yes, mouthpieces will say everybody is innocent until proven guilty because that’s the right thing to say but in the reality of it is it’s actually the opposite in this country nowadays. It’s a shame where our country has come from to where it is today. I would also tend to say that the public is much smarter today than it used to be in everybody would probably say that they are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law regardless of what public opinion is. People truly just don’t trust the government legal system any further than they have previously.

  7. NY won’t let go

    So I’m in a bit of a predicament. I need to go to the UK for work.

    I don’t live in the US and haven’t for a few years.

    My conviction was a no contest plea from 2007

    I’m on the NY registry but not the national one.

    Does anyone who lives outside of the US have any anecdotes of traveling to the UK?

    How does this even work 😂

    • Illinois Contact

      There is no separate national registry. It’s just a compilation of the state registries. I don’t think your living outside US is relevant.

      I was turned away at Heathrow and made to return home (at great expense) with a probation conviction as old as yours. The Customs is linked to the US database and the officer will easily flag your conviction and reject you.

      Where do you live now? Europe? As a test you could take the Eurostar from Paris to London and then if you are sent back it would not be too costly.

      Frankly, from personal experience and everything I have read, there’s no hope of your getting into the UK.

      • NY won’t let go

        I said the national one because in the nSOR website there is no information listed about me other than out of country.

        Not living in Europe. I live in an undisclosed location in Asia 😅

        Most of the reports I’ve read were going to or from the US and the people all still lived in the US and had a US address. My only tie to the country is my passport and the registry.

        I’m pretty sure by UK standards my crime would be considered spent as my sentence was only about 7 months. But then again Martha Stewart was banned and she isn’t even on the registry.

        • Tuna

          Wondering if either 1) Martha went before her conviction was ‘spent’, or 2) if she was not going as a tourist and was actually going for a paid gig and thus had to apply for a visa where would have likely disclosed her conviction, 3) both.

      • Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly

        It’s been awhile, but the last trip I took a number of years ago from London to Paris on Eurostar involved a level of passport scrutiny and database checking the equal of Heathrow.

        • AJ

          @Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly
          “It’s been awhile, but the last trip I took a number of years ago from London to Paris on Eurostar involved a level of passport scrutiny and database checking the equal of Heathrow.”
          Between Brexit and Syrian refugees, I’m sure it’s as before, if not worse.

    • Relief

      @NY wont let go: The UK is part of the “five-eyes” countries which are directly tied in to criminal databases. It’s why nearly everyone trying to enter Canada encounters questions to any past conviction. Also, sex offenses may be treated differently under the UK ‘spent’ conviction rules.

      I don’t recall anyone who is no longer required to registry by a country-move who has reported on UK travel. Even persons no longer required to register can encounter problems with UK immigration post-relief (regardless of being out of the NSOR).

      One possible option if you can do this: Fly into Paris where you should not have any issues regardless, Then take to the Chunnel train to London ~2 hr and cheap. The passport control is much less strict (no advanced check-in, etc) then travel by air. Not positive if this would work, but much less risk then flying directly to UK if you can do it this way. (Keep in mind, that you may still have obligations to report to police in the UK by just having the old offense, just like if you visited a state in the USA for X days. Research their requirements.)

      Going to the UK in your situation would be the ultimate ‘test’ of Intl travel while being off the registry by relocating countries.

      Hope it works out for you. Please keep us posted.

      • TS


        Five Eyes is intelligence related (signals specifically) and always has been since the beginning when the countries entered into the agreement, which also includes 1) greater surveillance of the internet which is where one can see if one is a registry participant which could lead the country to turning back a person based upon their policy and 2) surveillance on each other’s countries citizenry [unofficially of course because we don’t spy on allied countries (just ask Merkel from Germany) ;0)] much to the chagrin of many. Having your friends spy on your country and you use the data from it because it is illegal to spy on your own is a way around that little rule.

        So, if our allied nation friends are truly tied into our criminal databases (and we are tied into theirs, e.g. Scotland Yard, which I doubt), please state your source (a reference to the agreement in detail would be helpful) and I will stand corrected.

        • Relief

          @TS- You are completely correct. I just mis-used “five eyes” as short hand for the countries + Japan which seem to often coordinate criminal data sharing though the use of INTERPOL. However, there is an agreement from 2017 between US and the UK for direct criminal information sharing between ARCO and FBI CJISD. Here is the link:

          Also on Apr 9, 2019, the final details on ECRIS were signed which includes the UK. The link is here:

          Regardless of my comment to NY wont let go, he should remember that he would possibly need to disclose his conviction on a UK entry/immigration doc, which I do not believe is the case with the land/train crossing from Paris since he already passed through EU immigration control (but not certain now in 2019).

        • TS


          Thank you for the clarification on that and providing the sources with the most recent information. That’s very helpful for us to understand.

    • AJ

      @NY won’t let go:
      I see three options. 1) Travel and roll the dice. 2) Don’t go. 3) Ask the Brits via the local consulate/embassy. I suppose a fourth option is to try entering some other, closer Five Eyes country and see what happens. If they bounce you, the UK almost assuredly will, too. If they don’t, the UK may STILL bounce you, but personally it would boost my confidence of getting into the UK. That it’s a business trip makes it all a bit dicier. Tough call, mate.

      • NY won’t let go

        Thanks for all the responses.

        I spend a good amount of time googling yesterday.

        What I discovered was
        1. US citizens use the egate in the UK now.

        2. The UKs requirements for their own citizens aren’t as harsh and even if you’re on the lifetime registry you can apply to be off it in 15 years of being on it.

        3. The government gives tips on how to travel and find work if you’re on the registry in the UK

        On a side note I applied to renew my passport. Total processing time was 5 business days from when I handed in the form until it arrived at the embassy. Due to them having only certain dates and times for me to pick up I haven’t gone yet

        • NY won’t let go

          Just went on the UK gov website and it has this on there

          ”You may want to apply for a visa if you have a criminal record or you’ve previously been refused entry into the UK.“

          After filling out the form if I would need a visa

  8. Mike G

    We just returned from a 17 day trip through the Balkan area of Eastern Europe. We flew Turkish Airlines from SFO to Istanbul, changed planes in the International Transfer area of the new huge airport there, and flew on to Athens, Greece. There were no issues with any of this (I posted this earlier). After a day visiting Athens by walking around and using the Metro, we joined a tour group for a bus tour of this part of Europe. Our first border crossing was in to North Macedonia. When we arrived at the border, the tour leader went through the bus collecting everyone’s passport, which she then turned over to the border agents to process while we stayed on the bus. About 15 minutes later, a border officer emerged from his office holding one passport, and walked over to our bus. I figured now it all begins. I pictured myself being led off the bus and at least being interviewed, and at most being told that I couldn’t enter the country. But lo and behold, it wasn’t me, but another passenger who was hauled off the bus and questioned for about half an hour, and then was allowed to return to the bus. The tour leader announced that there was some issue with his passport (from somewhere in South America, I think) but that it was resolved. A little while later, the tour leader came back on the bus with everyone’s passport, returned them all to us, and the bus headed into North Macedonia.

    We proceeded to visit nine more countries, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Serbia, and Bulgaria, before returning to Greece. We knew Croatia wouldn’t be a problem from the excellent reports from Steve, and we knew Slovenia and Hungary wouldn’t be a problem because they are both Schengen and we had been to both of them before. But the bottom line is, we had no problems anywhere!

    Every border crossing was a different experience. Most of the time, our passports were gathered, taken into the customs office and then returned to us while we waited on the bus. Sometimes we had to go through this process when leaving a country, drive a couple of hundred yards, and repeat the process to enter the new country. Sometimes we all had to get off the bus and walk through the customs office to have our passports scanned. A couple of times, the officials for the two countries were sharing the office, so we handed our passports to the first official, who scanned them and then stamped them, and then we handed our passports to the person sitting next to him, who scanned them and stamped them for the new country we were entering. In the case of Croatia, we had to leave the country and then re-enter the country (as Steve described in an earlier post), and between Slovenia and Hungary, we didn’t even have to stop – just drove right across the border because they are both Schengen.

    Bottom line, we had no issues traveling from country to country on the bus. It was a bit disconcerting having our passports taken away and then returned later, but it was a non-issue. Also, some of the hotels we stayed in wanted to scan our passports, and a couple of times we had to leave them with the front desk and then pick them up later.

    Of course I can’t speak for the times when I was not in possession of my passport, but in all the times I watched my passport being scanned and stamped, I never saw anyone look at the marked page in the back of my passport. And when the passport was scanned, I’m guessing that the scanner was just making a copy of the page, as opposed to reading some code or RFID that might identify me in some manner.

    On our way back, we decided to push our luck a little bit. We learned that Turkish Airlines offers free tours of Istanbul to customers with a layover of 6 hours or more. Turns out, we had a layover of 5 hours and 55 minutes, so we decided we would go for it. Visas were required, so we applied online, and we were immediately granted Visas. We flew into Istanbul, and headed for passport control. The website said that the passport control people would know that we had visas, but it turns out they didn’t, so we had to bring up our Visas on our cellphone screens and show the agent. He copied down the information and let us pass into Turkey. The new airport is so large that it took us over half an hour to find the place where we could sign up for a tour, but we made it just in time. We boarded a bus with a tour guide and drove into Istanbul, which was about a 40 minute drive from the airport. We spent about 3 hours driving and walking around Istanbul, taking lots of pictures, and eating in a little café next to a huge mosque, before we had to get back to the bus to get back to the airport for our flight back to SFO.

    When I filled out my 21 day advance notice of travel, I didn’t mention anything about Turkey, because I assumed we would just be transferring through the airport, so I guess that would be one of those last minute unscheduled events that we should be able to get away with. That said, I have still never been asked anything about whether I gave the notice when I’ve re-entered the U.S. Of course, scanning my passport when I arrived at SFO, set off the usual alarm, but the agent didn’t seem too concerned. He handed my passport to another agent, telling him he wasn’t sure what the problem was. That agent said, “I don’t know why your passport was flagged, but let me save you a couple of hours.” So he followed us to baggage claim, and after we grabbed our bags, he had us follow him to a little table area, where he proceeded to search our bags, zip them back up, and told us to have a safe trip home. He was quite friendly, and even asked us about our trip and what places we liked best, etc. while he was searching. I wish all returns to the U.S. were this pleasant.

    In conclusion, and after visiting about 17 countries since getting it, the marked passport currently has no effect on travel, subject to change, of course. Also, I doubt that any country that is not electronically connected to the U.S. database is going to deny entry to us unless they receive the “WARNING WARNING” letter from Satan Watch. On the other hand, any of the countries I have entered with no problem could have a different attitude if one of those damn letters were to precede my visit. When I was turned away from Thailand, they met me coming off of the plane with the letter in their hands. They never even bothered to look at my passport.

    • steve

      Great news. My incoming customs experience was exactly the same in Seattle however after they decided not to check my bags and while walking out the female officer did say “you know why we pulled you aside right”? I believe the agents know all the details of our past when we comeback.

      • TS


        What did you reply with? No hopefully to find out specifically what she meant.

        • steve

          Didn’t want to stir it up. They were professional so I kept it that way.

      • AJ

        I’m guessing, “because you’re a mindless bureaucrat who ‘has’ to ‘just do your job,'” wasn’t your reply…

    • Don’t tread on me

      Mike G, that is great news and congrats on a great vacation. I am curious about your electronics devices and photos. Did you take your normal cell phone? iPad? Camera? Etc… I am hoping to take a similar trip soon and want to know what to expect. I’m trying to avoid loss of any photos of my girlfriend and my vacation via confiscation

      • TS

        @Don’t tread

        Use a cloud to upload these and your concern is gone or even snail mail them home for the same.

      • Mike G

        I did have my iPhone, iPad, and Nikon SLR camera with me the whole time. In probably 20 times returning to the U.S. from overseas since IML started, arriving in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, and Toronto (The U.S. Customs has an office inside their airport), I have never once been asked about my cell phone, iPad, or camera – no one has ever asked if I had them nor asked to see them. I don’t know what triggers problems with these devices that other travelers have apparently experienced.

      • jm from wi

        Just returned from 3+ weeks in Europe. Carried Phone, Kindle & Digital camera. Backpack was searched
        Electronics were not. All travel was easy accept 2ndary/customs/Passport in USA.

  9. Illinois Contact

    @Mike G Your trip sounds fantastic and my wife and I might like to go that same route (especially now that you have confirmed the passport permissions). Can you tell us the tour company/agency you booked with and maybe the name of the tour?

    My wife and I just spend two lovely weeks in Portugal — highly recommended. Great sights, and food and wine.

    • Mike G

      The company is called Expat Explore and the tour was called Balken Explorer. This was our third tour with them, so we got a bit of a discount. Usually, the earlier you book, the better price you get. You can pay a deposit, and the balance is due 60 days (I think) before you depart. They are based in the UK.

    • Mike G

      Ironically, we are scheduled to spend two weeks in Portugal in February!

  10. Illinois Contact

    Ideas for Portugal:

    Porto, fascinating small city on the Douro river. Get a guide to show you around (

    Explore taking a full day boat trip to Pinaho and stay at one of the small inns in the vineyards. The wine is sensational. Then take the train back to Porto.

    Next took the train to Coimbra, home of an ancient and beautiful university, inspiration for Hogwarts (in Harry Potter — J. K. Rowling spent time there).

    Then, train to Lisbon. Large, sophisticated, energetic, complicated expensive city (on a par with Chicago), but many worthwhile sights.

    Then, we flew (90 minutes) to Madeira, an island off the coast (also Portugal, no additional customs).

    There are excellent flights on TAP from Chicago and Newark.

    If you want let me know at when you get close to travel and I can send links to hotels, etc.

  11. NY won’t let go

    Just got my new passport from the embassy . Didn’t look at it until I got back just now.

    Checked every page twice. There is no marker 🥳

    • steve

      The letter usually comes to revoke your passport a few months AFTER traveling. This has been covered many times here…I should be getting mine any day now.

      • Mike G

        I got my revoke letter 8 days after I returned, but that was a year and a half ago – maybe they are more backlogged now.

  12. Mike G

    @NY won’t let go

    “Just got my new passport from the embassy . Didn’t look at it until I got back just now.
    Checked every page twice. There is no marker ”

    I would think that in your case that is a good thing. Since you don’t fly into or out of the U.S., you’ll probably stay off the radar. But who really knows in this crazy disorganized system that the Satan Watch people like to play games with.

    • NY won’t let go

      @Mike G yeah I’ve been really paranoid about that.

      In other news I got some funding for my lawsuit finally. Lawyer said it will take 2 -3 months to arrange everything.

      Last time we spoke she seemed confident that I could be removed from the registry if we did a federal suit as it falls in line with a previous suit that she won to get someone removed.

      • Mike G

        That would be great!
        I assume your suit would be based on the fact that you shouldn’t be on New York’s registry (or any U.S. registry) since you do not reside in the U.S.
        I am hoping the new California tiered registry revised law will get me off the registry in two years from now, but we are seriously looking at the possibility of moving overseas. We aren’t getting any younger, and even two years could make a difference. I think if I could get off California’s registry before we leave the country, it would make things easier, especially with regard to returning periodically to the U.S., as well as getting a normal passport again.

        • NY won’t let go

          Until the last sentence I was thinking “isn’t California one of those states with common sense that takes people off the registry after they leave?” 😂😂

          I never intended to return to the US.

          Even prior to the registry my life wasn’t so easy. And with the current international situations fueling the fire of racism in the US I continue with no intention to return.

          I’m pretty much done with any person or police officer who would harass me and call me a Chink. Like if you’re gonna be racist at least be accurate.

          I’ve had friends recently who had been shoved in front of trains and cars lately because people had assumed they were Chinese because they were of Asian decent. These people were born and raised in the US who had never lived anywhere else getting told to go back to their own country.

          Not saying all people in the US are shitty. Just a good majority of them.

      • E @ NY won’t let go

        Can you share the case she is referencing, or legal theory or attorney’s name??? Would sure love to know that. Good luck.

        • NY won’t let go

          @E You have a place where I can send it to you? Or should I upload it and post a link?

        • E

          Please upload if you can, or just share the case name or attorney name? Thanks NY!

        • NY won’t let go


          This is a link to the decision it will only be valid for 24 hours.

        • E

          Link no longer valid, though I’m within 24 hours… bummer. The title was “Roe decision” but all that brings up is Roe v. Wade stuff/abortion rights. Sorry if I missed it; can you share the case title/name? Thanks

        • NY won’t let go

 This one will be good for 7 day. I think possibly too many people clicked the other one 😅

        • E

          Thanks… got it this time. So this is a case about someone with an out of state conviction, moved to NY, NY wouldn’t let them off the NY registry even when they moved back to PA. NYSC disagreed. That’s cool (“irrational and contrary to law” is a nice phrase).

          But in this decision they reference another case from a NY criminal court that same year 2009 in which the lower court found a guy who’d violated his reg by moving to CT but DID have a NY conviction WAS still under NY jurisdiction: People v. Meares:

          That guy WILLFULLY was trying to evade registering and admitted it. Is this the case I’ve heard mentioned that supports the idea that a jurisdiction like NY or WI can keep people on lifetime, even if people moved out of state decades ago? If yes, it seems pretty weak. He just moved away and never told anyone… well, that’s gonna be a problem. I think there’s still room in NY or Wi (unless there’s other case law I just can’t find) to contest their assertion of long-arm jurisdiction after many many years. I had just never been able to find the actual cases.

          So thanks for sharing this!

        • NY won’t let go

          The decision I uploaded for you from what I was told was originally part of Doe v O’Donnell, but was put to a different court than the rest.

          If you look at all the cases lost in NY they always quote the alarmingly high rate of recidivism

  13. David

    Apparently, the trigger for receiving an IML U.S. passport is travelling internationally from the US. When you give 21 days advance travel notification, it is forwarded to the U.S. Marshal Services’ Angel Watch. Angel Watch probably notifies the DOS’s Passport Division that a passport needs to be revoked and replaced with an IML passport provided.

    • Illinois Contact

      Since I did not give a 21 day notice (that’s not possible in Illinois, and it is “not the law in Illinois” — see my post on Sept 24), I wonder if my recent trip to Portugal will not trigger the passport revocation. If that’s what the trigger is, and not just passing through US CBP on returning to the US. That’s the only record they have of my leaving the country. I’m sure the Chicago Police Department did not notify Angel Watch or whoever that I was leaving the US. They have never heard of Angel Watch and simply recorded my “change of address.”

      I’ll let you all know what happens.

      • TS


        I’d bet @IL Contact is correct in it’s the passing through the system and not notification only. No one here has mentioned they notified, not traveled, and still received a revocation letter, but received it after going through the system. DoS is going to track who’s using their passport and possibly where for travel to show metrics for budget purposes, etc. DoJ is going to know who’s on the registry and why, so when a match is made for someone who needs a marked passport between the two offices, a letter process is probably started.

      • steve

        LAPD had no idea about IML and I’m sure they took my 21 day notice and stuffed it in my file. Will be interesting to see what happens. It’s been nearly 3 months since I traveled.

        • Mike G

          I agree with steve. My passport was one of the first revoked, and I’m quite sure it had nothing to do with the 21 day notice. My revocation letter came shortly after a 2 week trip around Central Europe. When I turned in my 21 day notice, the officer said he would put a copy in my file, and I don’t think it ever went past that. Now, when I turn one in, they say they will upload it to the government file (who knows which one).

          Most likely the theory about a lot of travel causing the revocation is valid. In the 18 months before the revocation letter, I had also spent 10 days in Northern Europe, 2 weeks in Italy, 2 weeks in Egypt, and 3 weeks in China.

        • TS

          @Mike G

          I would doubt the large amount of travel which happened prior to your revocation was the actual trigger. I would imagine it was due more to the implementation of the 2016 law finally being able to be done was the reason why it took a little bit before revocation letters were sent and new passport backpages were able to be inserted.

          Once the law was passed, you had to have the budget in place to complete those pages, then you had to have the pages actually generated, and then everything else kind of waterfalls from there into being able to actually implement the law as is. As much as we’d like to believe, it is the United States government and nothing happens at the snap of a finger unless it’s already in place.

        • Mike G


          You may be right, but I wonder if there is some explanation for the inconsistencies other than incompetence.
          Some people get the revocation letter and some don’t, after returning from similar trips. Some get the letter sooner while others get it later. The only consistency seems to be that everyone (that I have heard of) that received the letter had traveled.
          Then there is the new passport itself. Some people who expect to get the marked passport, get it. Others who expect to get the marked passport get an unmarked one. Is there a reason, or just incompetence?

        • TS

          @Mike G

          Your point is very valid. The only explanation that I would accept is “it is the USG and nothing they do is either easy or without error somewhere along the way to confuse everyone” which works in their favor in court most times, but not always.

    • Will Allen

      @David, Illinois Contact, Etc.:

      I’d just like to throw out a brief opinion for your consideration.

      These criminal regimes have been more successful with their “$EX offender” witch hunt by running a good, constant, incessant propaganda campaign. They keep their hate message on point and the branding consistent. They’ve fully weaponized the term “sex offender”. I think we’ve seen from history that kind of branding is very effective. So I feel like we moral people need to fight the scumbags the same way.

      I don’t think anyone should ever use the term “sex offender” for any reason. If I must say it, I will ALWAYS put it in quotes. So instead of saying something like:

      —- They are punishing sex offenders with nonsense.

      I will say something like:

      —- They are punishing “$EX offenders” with nonsense.

      But I much prefer to simply never use the term at all unless it is needed for comprehension, context, or whatever. Otherwise I will say “Registered Person (RP)”. I’ve used “Registered Citizen” before but I’m not sure about that one. On one hand, it does promote the idea that RPs are citizens. But on the other hand, RPs are harassed and marginalized citizens, so do people want to claim being real, true citizens? Perhaps “Harassed Citizen” would be the best term always??

      Anyway, I just think is very, very, very important to always negatively brand the immoral side of this war and to NEVER refer to them in a positive manner. People should just see overwhelming negative connotations and branding regarding the Registries. In that vein, I suggest using:

      “Satan Watch” rather than “Angel Watch”

      “NOT-SMART” rather than “SMART”

      “criminal regime” rather than “government”

      “Registry Nazi/Terrorist (RN/T)” rather than “Registry Supporter” or whatever

  14. Disgusted in Michigan

    @NY won’t let go…very sensible and common sense decision by the court. I had to cringe when the state tried to play the “alarming high rate of recidivism” card. They just won’t let that one die even though everyone knows the truth.

    • Will Allen

      Well, they are criminals and liars.

      Maybe people should start saying something like, “Yes, the recidivism rate is alarmingly high, because we know just one is too many, but it’s really too bad that your magic Registries increase the recidivism rate. Supporting Registries is true stupidity.”

    • NY won’t let go

      @disgustedinmichigan just a note to you. Don’t go to NY from Michigan.

      Especially if you has a no contest plea. They see the no contest plea as a reason to put you at a higher level due to not admitting guilt.

      Hopefully something good happens back in Michigan and they take it all down. When I live there the cops followed me around even after I was off probation for a good couple years. In one month I had been pulled over 33 times for “being the wrong skin tone” where I was living or because they said I didn’t have a seat belt on.

      Truth be told they scanned my license plate it showed a picture of my house and in big red letters on the screen it said “sex offender” I saw this sitting in the back of their car while they tore mine apart

      • C

        NY won’t let go is 100% right on this point:

        “They see the no contest plea as a reason to put you at a higher level due to not admitting guilt.”

        I still have the original form from the presentencing investigation. I was mid-range Level 1. I was offered and took an Alford Plea and the judge specifically said at my hearing that he was “SENTENCING” me to Level 2 because I would not admit guilt.

        Since I have the original, I thought about trying to get dropped to level 1 since my conviction was in 2003 for a 1997 offense, but the new judge, was my lawyer.. LOL…. Why bother?

        The sentencing judge is dead and the investigating officer was arrested and convicted for falsifying evidence and other crimes.

        Pan forward to 2019 and my CA city is considering lawn signs for Halloween, being pushed forward by the MARRIED Mayor who has tried to bang my wife twice in the past before he was Mayor. I still have the texts and so will CBS News if a sign shows up on my lawn HAHAHAHA.

    • TR

      @ Disgusted in Michigan
      remember after 9/11, our government used the “terror threat alert level” from green to red and they seemed to always put it to orange to red to make us Americans think there’s a terror threat right after 9/11?

  15. John

    Found a list of the countries that are connected to interpol, if anyone is interested here is the link.

    • NY won’t let go

      I don’t really think Interpol is the issue. It’s the US making it the issue with AW.

      Even when you contact Interpol they wouldn’t consider you a risk if you’d served your time and aren’t on the run. But when the US sends out a request that’s a whole other story.

      • aa

        I think the interpol notice might be taken the wrong way. Apparently it makes you a person of interest. I have been told i was a person of interest by 1 foreign official. Its always been my assumption that a person of interest is a person under investigation for committing a specific, unsolved crime. It makes us look like we are running from a arrest.

    • Mike G

      Pretty much every country I have ever visited (40 or so) is on the Interpol list, but only one wouldn’t let me in, and they were holding the warning letter from Satan Watch.

  16. Steveo

    Wife and I just got back from 2 weeks in Spain. No problems entering. When we were coming back, they checked our passports 4 different times in Spain. Then when we got back into the US, in Atlanta, I got the X over my face when I scanned my passport. So the guy asked me a few questions like my email address, how long I was gone, etc… then they took us both to another place, rifled through our bags, and then sent us on our way.

  17. Dwight

    Any issues traveling to Paris?

    • Mike G

      Shouldn’t be. Several of us have been there within the last year or so.

    • David

      @ Dwight: I was just in Paris a couple weeks ago. No problems at all with French Customs / Border Control. The Customs officer barely looked at my passport and certainly did not turn to that special page 51 notice provided by IML.

  18. Mike

    Anyone travel to Germany recently?

  19. Joseph

    Is anyone knowledgeable about Deferred Adjudication probation completions? I got my passport about 6 months ago without the page 51 nonsense and I plan on moving to Germany for good and bringing my wife and 3 kids with me! I was told that I can legally say I do NOT have a conviction but apparently that’s just a loose term. Also, how long are the new passports valid before having to renew? Right now, my passport without the identifier is valid for 10 years.

    • @Joseph

      What kind of visa are you going to pursue in germany that leads to long term residence? Are you going to put your kids in public schools??

      • Joseph

        I should be able to obtain a work permit after finding a job. A residency permit should be easy to get after proving I have found work. My kids will go to public school.

        • Mike G

          I have heard that Germany only looks at your criminal record while you are in Germany (or the EU maybe?). If that is the case, and I hope it is, you shouldn’t have any trouble getting a residency visa.
          Let us know how it works out, please. Many of us are considering permanently relocating to Europe.
          Btw, the new marked passports are also good for 10 years.

    • AJ

      All general-public passports (blue covered) for adults are valid for 10 years, marked or unmarked.

      • Joseph

        @Mike G

        I will absolutely let you guys know every step of the way. I am currently taking German classes now to prepare. Any additional advise?

        • Mike G


          This is just my opinion, based on reading the experiences of others:

          Assuming you are required to register at the time you leave the country, make sure you tell them you are leaving. You don’t want a warrant issued for Failure to Register some time in the future.
          They will probably want a new address. I would use the address of a hotel where you might be staying temporarily when you get to Germany. Satan Watch pledges to notify countries of your intended travel, but they appear to depend on scanning the flight manifests on flights leaving the U.S. Whether they still send notices to countries like Germany, where they are currently ignored, is unknown, but it is doubtful that any notice would be sent to a hotel. To avoid any potential future trouble, I would not give your permanent address in Germany to any U.S. government agency.
          Although most of us have not a problem with transitioning, when you fly to Germany, you should avoid changing planes in a country which is unfriendly to us (UK for example), especially if you have to change airlines or airport terminals, requiring you to go thru customs or passport control.
          Hopefully you are leaving a state which will remove you from their registry when you are gone (unlike New York or Florida). As long as you don’t create any issues upon leaving, you should be able to return to the U.S., if needed, without a problem (except, of course, Secondary Inspection).

        • Joseph

          @ Mike G

          I am currently registered in Texas. I am not sure if Texas is a state that removes registrants once they leave. Maybe you have knowledge of this? Also, I served an 8 year deferred adjudication probation so I figured I am allowed to technically say “I have no felony convictions” when I get asked about my status. Would you have any knowledge of deferred adjudications?

        • Mike G

          Sorry, I don’t know about Texas, but I haven’t heard anyone complain about them keeping people on the registry, so probably, you are okay.
          Also, I am not familiar with the legal aspects of deferred adjudications. Of course you can say you have no felony convictions. The question is, what will show up if someone does a background check on you. Either way, I am hoping that this is a non-issue when you are in Germany applying for a resident visa.

  20. David

    ❓❓❓ Curious about your international travel experiences? 🤔 Submit FOIA Requests to:
    1. U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ runs Angel Watch and the U.S. Marshals Service) and,
    2. U.S. Department of State (they are in charge of U.S. Passports).
    It took about 7 months, many follow-up emails, and the involvement of my Congress person’s office, but I finally got my FOIA Requests answered. AND Angel Watch was sending inaccurate information about me, mistating that my conviction (now almost 25 years ago) was much more recent. And the notifications they send about me state “Priority: Urgent” and “Important: High”.

    I encourage everyone to submit FOIA Requests. If for no other reasons, it harrasses our harrassers(!) and forces them to waste time and staff answering our requests. (I have also filed a FOIA Request with my local police department because I wanted to know what their records about me indicated.)

    • Mike G


      I am happy that you were finally successful with your FOIA requests. I have a few questions:

      Were you able to file the requests online? Was there a web-page you could go to, or was it all by email?
      Did you receive information from both State and DOJ? Which one had the incorrect information, or was it both of them?
      Did they agree to correct the wrong information they were giving out about you? Did this correction change the “Priority: Urgent” and “Important: High” notifications?
      What was the attitude of your local Congress person’s office? Were they willing to work with you when they found out you were “one of us”, or did you have to force the issue?
      Finally, do you have any concerns that all of this might make you more prominent on everybody’s radar, leading to additional scrutiny or notices?
      Thanks for your time in posting all this!

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 *

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