ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (01/15 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Recording of Emergency ACSOL meeting about new SORNA regulations


General NewsNational

Action Alert: Congressional Bill to Expand Reach of IML

A new piece of federal legislation (HR 5150), if passed and signed into law, would expand the reach of the International Megan’s Law (IML).  The new legislation was introduced by the original author of the IML, Rep. Chris Smith (Republican, NJ), as well as Rep. Karen Bass (Democrat, CA).

The provisions of the legislation regarding the IML are a very small part of the 92-page bill which claims to be aimed at preventing and protecting victims of trafficking.  The IML provisions would expand the scope of the IML by extending it to U.S. citizens who reside overseas.

“As currently written, the IML requirement to add a unique identifier to the passport of an individual convicted of a sex offense involving a minor (under 18) does not apply to most individuals who live outside the United States,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “Section 201 of HR 5150 would change that by adding the unique identifier to the passports of individuals who have moved or otherwise reside outside the United States.”

The unique identifier is a statement added to a passport stating that the individual has been convicted of a sex offense involving a minor.  The statement does not include specific information such as the age of the victim or when the conviction took place.  It has been reported that some registrants whose passports include a unique identifier have been denied entry into a country.

“We must oppose Section 201 of HR 5150,” stated Bellucci.  “Registrants, family members and supports should contact the member of the U.S. House of Representatives who represents the district in which they live in order to oppose that section of the bill.”

HR 5150 also includes a provision that requires the U.S. government to obtain twice a year information from “each country participating in the visa waiver program” a list of individuals in that country who have been convicted of a sex offense and/or required to register as a sex offender.     The U.S. government may, but is not required to, share similar information with those countries.


Download the PDF file .

HR 5150 September 3, 2021


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What’s next will registrants who reside overseas be forced back to the United States? Hotel California has gone global and with members all about protecting children I can see this passing. Here we go again it’s time to drop the hammer on Rep Chris Smith’s brainless bills. How is this even memorable to Megan Kanka?

Hmmm, 🤔 This is odd. If a U.S. citizen has permanently relocated to another country, then I would assume he has notified the U.S. state where he had previously been living that he will no longer be registering with them because he has permanently moved out of state. So, unless he was registered in N.Y. or Florida (where he’d be on their registries forever), he would therefore have been removed from their registry. Isn’t IML for individuals who both: (1) must register (2) due to an offense involving a minor. So if he permanently moves out of country, then he no longer registers anywhere, so #1 above is no longer valid, so IML would no longer apply to him.
Am I mistaken or misunderstanding?

Also, “HR 5150 also includes a provision that requires the U.S. government to obtain twice a year information from “each country participating in the visa waiver program” a list of individuals in that country who have been convicted of a sex offense and/or required to register as a sex offender.”
So – reading between the lines here – the U.S. will soon start banning entry to those convicted of a sex offense in a foreign country? That’s a bit curious, since other countries have varying age of consent laws as well as sexual offense laws regarding rape, child molestation, CP, etc. Homosexuality, sodomy and oral sex are certainly illegal in some countries, though not in the U.S., but we would ban entry to individuals convicted of those non-(U.S.)-offenses? 🤔


So, once again, Chris (and a Karen) are attempting to create a solution to what is likely a non-existent problem. This is becoming remarkably ridiculous! 🙄

Can someone please remind me: Have any of these asshats proposed anything that would prevent a sexual offense BEFORE it occurs? Because sexual offenses continue to occur and new individuals are constantly being added to the Registries. So where are the real efforts at preventing/precluding offenses from occurring?? Preventative counseling programs, for example. Instead, we are wasting millions in taxpayer dollars on incrementally increasing punishment with no genuine prevention efforts. It’s truly ridiculous! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Lawmakers sure love to get their jollies by kicking and spitting on us registrants, but none of them are proposing a damn thing that will stop sexual offending (and also bring an end to their own insufferable pandering). 😡

As we all know, these bills have never had anything to do with trafficking or sexual offending (because these kinds of bills make things worse instead of better). It is all about power and staying in office.

Well, I just read this after reading the email from my lawyer in NY

For my case they keep using false information that I’ve proven multiple times to be falsified by the police.

Their whole “concern” stems from a misdemeanor for not attending summer classes while living in Michigan (state of the original offense)

More likely the judge and prosecutor do not like me(they are the ones who originally fucked up my risk assessment in NY basing it off of false information)

I haven’t lived in the US for over 5 years and have built a life here. This just makes me want to jump from the rooftop.(someone did that last week at my building)

I’m really tired. Each time I find peace, even the slightest everything comes crashing down.

Who is your lawyer in NY?

I feel for you. I know you have been through a lot already. If this thing passes, it is going to screw things up for a lot of people – it would sure mess up my future plans.
I’m getting too old for this kind of crap. I guess my only chance now is to learn Spanish a lot better than I currently speak it. I am eligible for Mexican citizenship if I can pass the citizenship test in Spanish 😒.

If I had your opportunity I’d have subscriptions to Babble and Rosetta Stone, a night job washing dishes at a Mexican restaurant and a Mexican girlfriend to learn me some Español PDQ!

You need to get yourself residency there. Im in a similar boat as you. Wish we could talk.

I’m in the same boat but I’m legal, I’ve built a life here and I’m not going to look back. Establish residency there, be legal there – do what you can. When you’re the best you can be and you’re successful, you’re proving them how silly these laws actually are and helping those we’ve left behind in the US.

I’ve got a visa here but unfortunately it takes about 20 years to get permanent residence, because it really means permanent. Like there is no expiry date like a US green card.

David, unfortunately I think your first question may be answered by Title II Sec. 201 (b) of the proposed legislation, which would amend the second half of the definition of “sex offender” in IML (USC 21503(f)(2)) to read:

“2. an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction, [or would have to register if the individual returned to that jurisdiction after departing it to reside outside the United States], or included in the National Sex Offender Registry, on the basis of an offense against a minor.”

(Proposed text in brackets)

I may be wrong, but as I read it, the part of the proposal I just mentioned aims to avoid exactly the conceptual conundrum you rightly point out.

However, the other part of the proposal, regarding information sharing about lists of “covered” people is – as usual with registry laws – both confusing and potentially alarming. I find aspects of the foreign national part confusing for reasons I won’t go into here, as I suspect most reading this are not potentially covered foreign nationals residing outside the US. The other alarming part, as many here have already pointed out, is the reciprocal sharing of similar information by the US.

I take the purpose to be something like this: to proactively alert a country about registrants who are “covered” but were able to enter that country prior to IML, without the identifier or the 21-day notification; or to alert countries post-IML but without the 21-day notification and potentially without the identifier yet. Basically, to reciprocate the other countries giving the US information on their nationals by providing them additional info to close “gaps” in their immigration control on this issue. It is the first of these two that is rightly potentially alarming to some registrants living outside the US. Consider a covered person (given the above change of definition) who has been living in Visa-Waiver-Program (VWP) country X for 15 years as, say, the relevant visa(s) or residency permit/permits did not ask about convictions some amount of time in the past, or only asks if a certain sentence was imposed, etc. Now the US could go “by the way…”

Finally, although I know this provides little in the way of consolation to those potentially in the situation just described, it is worth noting here for others that the proposal specifically says, “from each country participating in the visa waiver program.” The VWP is not the same thing as any country that US citizens can enter visa-free; it is a reciprocal visa-free travel program (as in the other countries’ nationals can visit the US visa-free as well) and is a much smaller list of countries. For example, US citizens can travel visa-free to Armenia or Hong Kong, but neither is in the VWP. On the other hand, most of the countries that are in the VWP are either no-go for registrants anyway (e.g., UK, NZ, SK) or are open to registrants even knowing full well that person’s status, e.g., Schengen countries. Perhaps part of the goal of this is to better coordinate tracking of multiple-nationals of multiple VWP countries (Say, US-UK dual citizen) between jurisdictions that are eager to cooperate (like Five Eyes)?

Regardless, it sucks.

I am in this situation. Since i am “covered” and entered this foreign country prior to IML. My name was removed from the registry in the state I moved from, and am not listed on the national registry when searching online. But I feel that there is a list that has been complied by the Angel Watch of people like me who have slipped through their net and they are eager to fix it.

I am wondering how they would have such a list. They would have to have a list of all Americans who reside outside the country. And a list of all people who would be required to register but who have been removed for moving away from a jurisdiction.

I guess they could just work backwords from a list of all people who have been removed from the registry. Which is small enouph that you can check each one and see if they have a passport and search for foreign addresses.

Based on how the IML was implemented currently based on reports made here, where passports are revoked for not having an identifier only when returning from foreign travel, it seems there is no master list of sex offenders with passports, but rather they are found on a case by case basis.

Last edited 4 months ago by JM

@JM, I’m not sure how easily they could do this. First, the national registry pulls the data from the state registries provided to it. It does not have its own database where this information is easily available. Second, a state may have removed someone from the database for another reason that is different from them residing in another place. Perhaps their registration requirement from the state expired instead for example. So if they work backwards from people that have been removed and also reside outside the country, they may be capturing people who are not authorized by that law.

I think the likely scenario is that they will rely on states to report persons reporting to the state to be removed from the registry because they moved to a foreign country and that’s the way they would know. It would be difficult to find those that have already left unless they return first and then move away again.

Another thing to consider is Interpol. It doesn’t matter how old a conviction is, or even if someone is off the registry. If Interpol decides to run your name and they see your history, that could very well be grounds for denial of entry.

This thing will be passed behind close doors, in haste and not open for comments. Biden will sign it, after all he needs something that is bi-partisan.

How interesting that Karen Bass, who pandered to her constituency as being ‘inspired’ by the civil rights movement, would help oppress about one million “Registered Sex Offenders.” It’s quite disturbing that the Democrats seem to be joining forces with the Republicans in ramping up the heat against Registered Sex Offenders. It’s also disturbing that in addition to having about one million Registered Sex Offenders in the United States, one-third of America’s population have some sort of criminal record, and America has the largest incarcerated population compared to China, Russia, and even North Korea, measured by both total population and per capita. Then this country has the audacity to call itself the “Land of the Free.”

I think this proves that we have incompetent, short-sighted, politicians in “leadership” positions.

We deserve better leadership. Unfortunately, there aren’t many smart, forward-thinking, people who seek political office.

This bill is yet another illustration that we cannot count on either major party, Republican or Democrat, to protect the constitutional rights of registrants and their loved ones.

Or, Any citizen on that score

The United States is master of false propaganda and successfully marketing those false propagandas to the rest of the world. Land of the free, land of 2nd chances, land of everything you can possibly dream of …etc. etc. They just don’t include the fine print in their advertising and marketing. They let you find out for yourself once you’re rooted here.

I’ve lost count how many people I’ve come to know that come here to live, especially from Europe, only to move back after 2 or 3 years. The reason ?
” Your country is f**king wack! ”

Look up any credible survey on ranking the best countries in the world to live in based on Human rights and the United States are not even in the top 10 or even top 20.

It does rank in the top 5 for military might and economic prowess, but in my experience, those are the 2 basic ingredients for just being a classic bully and an a**hole.

This has all become so ridiculous. If it was not so draconian and hateful it would be laughable. How do we defend against such zealotry and hate? I have been trying to take the step to leave this country and looks like I better move up my plans. Just have to figure out how to afford it.

@ Hostage in TX: Many European countries already think Americans are hysteric sexphobic freaks.
They are obviously correct. And I certainly wonder how they would respond to a request for a list of their convicted sex offenders when most Europeans tend to have a very different, more forgiving, view of rehabilitation, time served, and starting afresh. 🤔

@David: Yes you are correct about the Europeans opinion of the American sex hysteria. I urge you to join website. The fellow that runs that is an expat from Florida living in Germany and would be a good contact for all of us.
He currently has a case in the German courts investigating the USA S.O. registry as a human rights violation. I hope he prevails!

David, you and I continue to disagree with where to strike that balance, i.e. how much less sexophobic Europeans are than Americans. They ARE less sexophobic but that’s not saying much when you consider just how crazy the Americans (and the British and the Canadians and the Australians and the New Zealanders) are on the subject of child/adolescent/adult sex. Having lived in both France and Italy many years ago and having been a twice-annual visitor to Europe over three decades until IML, I can tell you that it would be very easy to exaggerate the extent to which Europe remains unaffected by a pervasive hysteria which, having originated in English-speaking countries, then went on to infect the entire world, with very few exceptions. France is very far away from being non-hysterical. All one has to do is to consume their media, as I do (and can do), to know just crazy they have become. Yes, less crazy than Americans but still plenty crazy. The Netherlands, which was once remarkably enlightened on the subject, now forbids “pedophiles” from communicating any but the most self-hating views. This was decided by Dutch courts several years ago. There are Dutch people, right now, who are awaiting trial for expressing their unpopular political opinions in emails with one another. Obviously, that’s not something that even the U.S. will/can do.

Once, in Munich, I was watching the news in my hotel room and saw video of police, accompanied by a news crew, raiding another guy’s hotel room on suspicion of selling child porn, and then proceeding to kick him in the head repeatedly while he lay on the floor. You don’t even see that in the States.

Euro-gushing is not a very honest or productive enterprise and can easily mislead people into thinking that Europe is tolerant. It is not.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to pass any legislation by anybody who supported the capitol insurrection. My guess is Chris Smith is in that category.

I think I have worked my way through this to be able to write formally on this (an actual letter, actually several, with stamps on them, physical letters being harder to ignore).

Here is my approach and please feel entirely free to criticize this…I post this so it will be criticized, and hopefully made better.

1. The great body of this proposed legislation deals with human trafficking, and no one is arguing against these efforts if honestly done.

2. The larger problem is the brief reference to the IML being renewed, a law that was passed in 2016 without a roll call vote, and to my knowledge, without public hearing in reference to this law that has caused great harm.

The IML was snuck in under the cover of darkness without critical review or honest discussion by Representative Smith probably because he knows it cannot stand up to scrutiny against the harm that it causes.

3. There are over One Million registered sex offenders across the United State. Each of these individuals has family, or children or loved ones that also have also been adversely and unfairly harmed by Representative Smith’s acts. And again, acts that he refuses to allow to be openly shown so that he can personally see his responsibility for the families he has torn apart, and the children he has harmed by by this willful breaking of families, and individuals.

There is no connection at all between Human Trafficking and the IML. There is absolutely no recidivism and this needs to become public knowledge to at least a little, rectify the harm that it has caused.

It should also again be noted that the right to travel is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13

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

   Mr. Smith’s institution of the IML without review or actual vote in the House has caused untold harm to American Citizens and should not be renewed. Or, at a minimum, have open House and Senate Committee hearings so that the harm of this law can be honestly shown the light of day.

Thanks, and again, if anything is actually wrong, factually, in the above please lay the hammer of truth on me. I won’t take it personally, I am looking for advice.

Best Wishes, James I

Your letter sounds great, and, as far as I know, is factually correct!
I just had my 70th birthday, and I think you are at least that old if not older. We’ve both been on this damn registry for decades, and are hoping for some relief this year or next year. I think you are anxious to travel overseas again, as I am, and you might be considering moving permanently to a foreign country as I am, for as many years as we have left. With this bill, it sounds like our convictions are going to get directly tied to our passports.

This bill sounds something like:

“Dear Spain, here is a list of all U.S. passport holders living in your country who have been convicted of a sex offense. Would you please be so good as to provide us with a list of all passport holders from your country who have been convicted of a sex offense and are now living in the U.S.? Thank you very much!”

Can’t turn out well.

What stops them from already doing this? Do they really need this law to send that letter?

Daam 70 years….what was life like on the registry before the internet ??


James I
Can I use your letter to send to my rep here in Texas?

Certainly, Hostage, (and are we all not Hostages?) please use all or as much of my letter as you want. I suppose that I wanted to note that it isn’t possible to oppose all of this Bill (Law) without slicing out “Trafficking.” Any letter that does not distance themselves from the Trafficking aspect gets treated as a crank.

So we kind of have to only pick on the IML…which is our real complaint anyhow.

So no,LOL, one more time…use all of it if you wish. No Problem.

Best Wishes, James I

Last edited 4 months ago by James I

@James I. I sent your letter to my local Rep Van Taylor who represents my district in Texas. To my amazement I got a call from his office wanting more information!! I dont believe it! So having called them back after hours, I will endeavor to contact them starting Monday morning. Maybe someone up there wants to learn something.

Dear Hostage in Texas:

It is more than that…it is a sign of taking back at least some control of your life….which you should have, which is your right.

I enhanced my letter to Senator Feinstein a little by noting that she faced no election risk by doing the right thing and asking for a Senate Fact finding on the effects of the IML.

Likewise to my Senator Padilla, though not much to my Representative…I don’t really know how to specifically target her or what would be meaningful beyond what is already in the letter, (I was going to say my letter, but it is your letter now too!).

I also don’t really know about the Senate, but what the heck, I am sure they have to vote on this also.

in any case…You are doing better than I. (grin)

Congratulations, really

Best Wishes, James I

Or, Janice. Do you have a form letter that we can send out and blitz all the reps in the house? We have a lot of people here and we need to flex some muscle. What say you?

that was pretty dang good !

Does the new language apply to those no longer required to register? It would have to because once you leave the U.S. one is no longer “required” to register.

This is to ensure that you can’t escape the label by permanently leaving the U.S. Its retribution at its finest.

It appears to apply to anyone who has ever been convicted of a sexual offense in the U.S. and now lives, or wants to live, in another country.

If you read the bill it appears as if it applies to anyone who left a jurisdiction where they were required to register to live overseas if they would be require to register if they returned to that jurisdiction. The wording is ‘‘or would have to register if the individual returned to that jurisdiction after departing it to reside outside the United States”. Since that instance would then make them a ‘covered’ offender that would make them obligated to report travel 21 days in advance to another third country if somehow they were able. What a strange thing to have to do.

Last edited 4 months ago by M C

So, if you have to register in the state of conviction, but not in the state you live in when you left the country, your passport would have the stamp? Or if you move over seas from a state where you were required registered, but not required to register in the state of conviction you still get the stamp? Seems like the states each have an influence on whether you get the stamp or not. It is this way already, where the state you live in affects whether you have to register, have to give 21-day notice, and if you get the dreaded passport stamp. Each state has their own list of offenses and varying interpretation of the ex post facto application, and is not uniform across the country. Do I hear an equal protection argument?

I’ve always thought you could potentially have an equal protection case but I think the success would be unlikely. PFR’s are not a protected class so your case would involve disparate treatment (treating similarly situated people differently). The problem here is that people who reside in different states aren’t similarly situated because living in a different state would obviously make you not similarly situated and therefore how you are treated can be different because you live in a different state – without running afoul of the constitution. Maybe I’m not looking at that right, but that’s how I believe such a claim is likely to fail.

That was exactly my question: once you leave the United States, you no longer register. Which means you are no longer on a registry which is one of the two components of getting a marked passport: #1 being on a registry and #2 as the result of an offense involving a minor. If you’re no longer on a registry, that would seem to preclude the application of IML. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Does anyone else see the irony in the Bill’s designated number? 5150 is police code for a person not in control of facilities. In other words ….CRAZY! which Smith is

LOL, WI uses form number DOC1796 is registration form #. Just as Washington was leaving as President, the two parties struck a deal to run the nation as equally invested competitors for the will of the people. Slavery was very much in play at that time. It was routine and away of life.

Times like this I wish I practiced Voodoo and had a Chris Smith doll giving him a pain in the ass for being an ass.

I’ve always wished I could be invisible. If I could be I think could end the Oppression Lists in all of America all by myself. Right? How long would it take me? One year? Two? I’d like to see a talented person with a great imagination write a book about that so that I could read it. I’m imagining the first paragraph right now. I’ve got a great first sentence.

We need to stop Rep Chris Smith from passing the bill, and the IML violates the Constitution and violates human rights of American citizens, his claim of how the IML is working well to diminished human trafficking is fallacious.

Passport identifiers for people convicted of crimes involving a minor, dose that mean when Harvey Weinstein gets out of prison he won’t have the sex offender identifier on his passport.
I came to the realization along time ago when I was 18 that I’ll probably never be able to leave the country and honestly I don’t care my fights here in America I want revenge for the 21 years they stole from me.

Good luck

After reading this and cogitating on it, this could work into PFR favor in court, I think. While I don’t want this to pass into law because of the evil intent behind it, and POTUS does not know what the hell he is signing into law anyway as show by his reckless signatures since Jan 20, by framing this the way these two knuckleheads have, they are now grouping an entire set of people (not a class because it cannot be a class) into being forced to have a statement in the passport and not extending it to others who have been convicted. This last part is the hook I believe that could get the attention of the courts….not extending it to others who have been convicted.

We know the stamp is not getting a lot of attention by those here who have shared their experiences, so harm is negligible and not a useful avenue in court, but the singling out of those convicted of a sex offense and not others who are convicted of a crime who travel/live overseas is possibly the avenue to get this struck down.

I know we’ve discussed Equal Protection Clause here, but with the possible expansion of this stamp in this manner could make it viable to be reviewed in the courts.


I think there is a problem with that avenue because people convicted of some other crime is not the same as someone convicted as a sex offense. At least, this is how the courts will see it. Unless someone is a protected class so that you could have a disparate impact case, you must argue disparate treatment where you must be able to show that all persons convicted of a crime are similar and that somehow a sex crime falls within that category of similar persons and doesn’t lie outside as somehow different from other the other criminals. I could be wrong, but I think you will have trouble showing that someone convicted of a sex offense is similar enough to someone convicted of some other type of offense.

Tag it to the child murderers. They claim all sex offenses are “child molesters” and only second to child killers. Focus specifically on the subset of killers who’s victims were children but not molested. This is about protecting kids right? So why is a chomo set up for more punishment than and child killer?

Maybe because America has more tree huggers, tree jumpers have fallen down the social pecking order.

@M C

I hear you. However, if the courts and justice systems are forced to defend the position you say, it’d be interesting to hear it, I think. I’d like to see them say why they shouldn’t be considered the same when it comes down to it. I don’t think a case dismissal could be easily had.

As I learned in my younger days, just because isn’t a valid answer.

MC – I see what you are saying. Using a silly analogy, though, should they not consider types of offenses and their punishments compared? Comparing all burglars that get similar sentences is ok, but what about a burglar who steals a lamp compared to a drug dealer who beats someone half to death? The offenses are not comparable, but the severity should be considered. A registrant looks at pictures and nobody is physically harmed. He gets sentenced to x amount of years plus registry (which of course is not punishment…((sarcasm)). The drug dealer who almost kills someone gets less x amount of years and no registry. Not sure if this makes sense.

“Harm is negligible”? Uh, no. The harm is extreme. IML is keeping a lot of families from traveling. Is that harm? Is it harmful to fly your entire family to country X and be forced to immediately leave? Only if it costs more than $10,000? Is it harmful that anyone else is free to travel whenever and wherever they like and without telling the criminal regime about it, such that your family does not travel? Further, the stupidity and worthlessness of it all is simply stunning. Exacerbated by the fact that it is mostly only applied to people simply living lawful lives and not to dangerous criminals (such as gangbangers just released from prison). IML is as much about “human trafficking” as I am a human trafficker.

It is only true that “the stamp is not getting a lot of attention” if you mean ONLY the actual stamp on the passport itself. But that is not the problem. The problem is that IML exists at all – the 21 days notice, the notice then sent to another country, and the subsequent denial of travel and costs associated with it.

Also, the scumbags that support IML don’t care that it doesn’t make any sense and is the “singling out of those convicted of a sex offense”. IML has done that from the beginning. The Oppression Lists have been doing that for over 2 decades and everyone thinks they are awesome and useful. Nonsense doesn’t bother them.

@Will Allen

I agree with you about the harm as you described and should have added the government believes the harm is negligible.

How many countries have low life expectancies, so wouldn’t the age of marriage be different than here? Just because it’s icky in the United States of Judgement doesn’t mean it’s icky globally. This country needs to stop being the world’s policemen, bully, and hypocritical.

I guess the message is: If your country thinks it is okay for your men to have sexual relations with, or marry, persons under the age of 18, we don’t want your men in our country.

This was what I sent my legislator:

Dear Representative,

I write to ask your support in opposing HR 5150.

I know this is asking you to take a very bold stand. It is easy to vote “Yes” on legislation that adds more punishment to those who have committed sex offenses because nobody wants to be viewed as soft on sex offenders.

However, you must be aware that African Americans are disproportionately swept up on our nations sex offense registries (Ackerman & Sacks, 2018). Even in 2021, our society still regards most African American men as predators, lurking in the shadows to “violate our women and daughters”.

Our current SOR laws do more than target African American men. They paint all offenders with the same brush. Approximately 200,000 people on sex offender registries were placed on the registries for crimes they committed as children.

Before we add yet another layer of punishment for sex offenses, I urge you to ask whether we are hitting the right target. Does empirical evidence support the emotional desire to punish? Are the registries actually preventing offenses, or are we merely creating a “feel good” response that actually does more harm than good?

If you feel you must vote “Yes” on this legislation, I urge you to demand accountability. What is the specific problem this legislation is seeking to resolve, and how will you measure whether it succeeds or fails?

Consider the diplomacy of IML. THEN consider this article about france pulling agents from US and others over a seemingly unrelated topic.
Also consider the outcome from advertising sex offenders on a world wide scale.

Wait ! Does the government own us?? Am i there property? I understand if i live in your house its yours rules, but this seems like a civil and human rights issue to me. What do we have to do, rescind our citizenship to be free from the tyranny? What happen to the Gov. “shale not impede our travel” its in our constitution.Hate to say it, but this country is on a slippery slope to communism.

⭐⭐ Update?⭐⭐
Hi all. Is there any news or update about this proposed legislation??
Thanks for any information! 👍🏻

Let’s be honest, once you have left the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the United States can cry and whine all they want.

They lack both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

The US Supreme Court already ruled once a person moves to a foreign country, they are not legally required to update their status.

Because as they pointed out, they have no jurisdiction.

End of story.

LOL!!! Yep. They can kiss my ass! I hope to move to a more SANE country in the future.

Which US Supreme Court case is that? I’d like to read it and have for reference.

Careful what you are saying. As long as you are a US citizen as I understand it the US government retains jurisdiction over your conduct. I can’t remember the case I think you’re referring to but I believe it was about state jurisdiction when abroad not federal which is quite different.

Correct. It falls under the Nationality Principle that the government of a citizen can obtain jurisdiction over its citizen even when that citizen is abroad. The only way around that would be to become a citizen of the country you’re living in, and give up your US citizenship.

No one seems to have told NY about this as they just forced me to update my information on their registration even though I haven’t live in the US for over 5 years. NY worded their laws in a way that they have a higher jurisdiction than the federal government.

Government can really upset the balance of nature. Nobody owns anyone in this IML. Sure governments have their “Pride” but all governments seem to want to do it their way and out do the other. Its a shame that many are caught up in this entanglement. One government wants to be better than the other. Same as people. So who is true? Just like one law firm wants to be better than the other firm. One wonders about Constitutional Justice today.

This IML is more of a downfall of American Justice and Government. Sure there is ethical problems, black listings, and emotional damaging, but government is overriding their bounderies in unethical ways – but what do I know. One wonders if “In God we trust” is the wooden nickle in everyone’s pocket today or does man’s devices go a bit too far.

I am glad to see Janice and many other advocate’s striving to correct much of this IML and this registry of ill repute.

So, question for clarification purposes with some background.

I have a passport with no identifier and have never been contacted by the Feds to exchange it. I’m due to come off the state registry in August 2023. My passport is due to renew in 2025.

Will I receive a passport at that time with an identifier even though I’ll no longer be ‘covered’? Or will I have any other issues with international travel post removal from my state registry?

TIA for your help all.

Nothing seems to have happened to this bill yet, HR 5150. Is that a good sign or is that just a normal slow pace of bills like these?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x