Source: ACSOL
The U. S. State Department is proposing a significant change to passport applications. According to a notice published in the Federal Register earlier this month, the federal agency will add a statement to passport applications that requires an applicant to affirm whether he or she is required to register as a sex offender in accordance with the International Megan’s Law.
“The addition of this requirement to passport applicants could be a blessing or a curse for those convicted of a sex offense,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “It would be a blessing if registrants are no longer required to request the addition of a unique identifier to their passports. It would be a curse if the federal government defines the term ‘sex offender’ as a person convicted of a sex offense regardless of whether they are currently required to register.”
Comments regarding this proposed change are due no later than March 17, 2025.
The sooner I’m out of this country the better.
That sounds a little bit like compelled speech to me.
Oh, so now they’re asking up front. This is just an iteration of the “Have you been convicted of a felony” checkbox on an application. While everyone is watching this nation descend into total chaos and uncertainty, just know know that once they’re done with the immigrants, illegals, trans and (insert any barely socially acceptable marginalized class here) – all crosshairs will be trained on us.
I thought they did this already or were talking about doing it. So, it’s no big surprise. After these changes are made into law, I wonder if the state department will still bother to track down individuals and revoke their passport for not having the identifier? Nothing in the new law states that travelers have to trade their old passport for one with an identifier, or they’d face criminal penalties.
They’re setting a trap and probably aren’t even aware of it.
Some people don’t know if they are “covered” as defined by SORNA-referenced IML.
Only two U.S. circuits (5th d 7th) have issued a clear definition on how to determine the “derogitory label” using a modified categorical method. Other’s like the 9th circuit defined it using a method detrimental to people. Example: a person with victims under the age of 13 can still attain a “not covered” status depending on how the state code is worded and regardless of the actual age of the victim. The federal government will refuse to tell someone with an offense if they’re considered “covered”. The prosecution will only make the determination if they are preparing to prosecute someone for violating SORNA.
Hiding their determination from us and then having us sign a passport application declaring our status (i.e. “covered per SORNA” and therefore required to register) will force the remaining U.S. circuits to hear challenges as the feds prosecute people for lying on their applications.
Perhaps this will be an improvement…
About a year after the new law requiring the markers was in effect I sent my passport in for renewal – I had some upcoming international travel and didn’t want to have my passport revoked while overseas. They sent me back a new passport without the marker, only to revoke it about a year later because it didn’t have the maker. I had to pay for another new passport.
It wasn’t until all this happened that I was told that under current guidelines WE have to request the marker, even though they’re supposed to not issue passports without it to those that are required to have it. So I did that on my second new passport and did get the marker.
Hopefully this is just a streamlining procedure to avoid anyone else getting an unmarked passport only to have it revoked later on and have to go back to the starting blocks.
Hopefully it’s not the start of something worse like a denial of passports for anyone on the registry. I know what the law says and that we’re currently allowed passports, but this administration doesn’t seem inclined to follow the rules and will act on what one man says. Unfortunately for us his Attorney General is from Florida and I think that she’s drunk the same Kool Aid as others in Florida who push for harsher and harsher rules for us. If she gets in his ear we can assume the worst.
I’m confused about the language here: affirming that he or she is not required to register, in accordance with International Megan’s Law (34 U.S.C. 21501et seq., and 22 U.S.C. 212b).”
According to the law only Angel Watch Center can confirm if someone is covered under IML. Not all sex offenses are covered under IML. Only those with a sex offense against a minor who are also required to register.
If someone isn’t aware of that and has a non-qualifying sex offense, and still affirms they are required to register, in accordance with International Megan’s Law”, will the State Department go to AWC to double-check if the person is subject to IML?
I commented on this and made 4 main points: