National RSOL: International Travel Group

Great I’m sure hope this very big problem get solved soon I would love to be able to go on cruises again. It’s the cheapest way to have a very nice vacation

I am a bit at a loss here. The crime was committed on US soil, locally, domestically; there was no international crime denoted. The US cannot restrict travel as it is a constitutional right. The US already does hamper movement by forcing registrants to tell every local municipality when he/she is leaving as well as when he/she is arriving. That alone is unconstitutional as it unwarranted search by requiring the registrant to give up said information when he/she has not been a factor of a new crime to induce such a “search upon a person”. Yet, it doesn’t necessarily restrict travel, but it does hamper it tremendously – such as in a form of harassment.

Now, from reading so many international news of countries BANNING registrants, how do those countries know that a registrant is coming into their country? Simple. The US Government is providing the list. In providing the list to other countries and those countries decide to BAN registrants, then the US Government is an accomplice in the restriction of travel, in this case, international travel. While the US Government doesn’t control what other countries do, the US Government does control the dissemination of the registry list.

For what purpose is the dissemination of said registry list? To protect children from the likelihood of a “frightening and high” re-offense rate of sex offenders. Yet, utilizing empirical evidence with credible sources that have been vetted, Prof. Ira Ellman has debunked the “frightening and high” rate of 80% recidivism by proving that sex offenders have one of the lowest rates of re-offending. Over 95% of sex offenders do not re-offend for sex crimes.

Very recently, the CDCR, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, has founded through its research that only 0.8% of registrant parolees re-offend for another sex crime. In other words, over 99% of registrants do not re-offend for another sex crime when under parole.

Yet, none of us see neither the Prof Ellman’s empirical debunking of the myth of re-offense rate upon which the Supreme Court used in its ruling (which is ruling upon false facts and needs to be re-visited via Writ of Error Coram Nobis) or the recent 2014 CDCR report that OVER 99% of registrants do not re-offend for another sex crime information be disseminated. Empirical evidence disproves the “frightening and high” re-offense rate and, in fact, proves that registrants are among the lowest classifications of not re-offending. So the theory of protecting the children is a myth that has been debunked scientifically and empirically. But the US Government remains complicit in disseminating the registry list to the world, thereby, restricting travel to a registrant.

If that US Government feels that disseminating information is not hampering restriction and it is those other countries that are doing the restriction, then let us use the inverse statement to disprove otherwise.

Statement: If the US Govt disseminates the registrant list to other countries, then there is a possibility that a registrant is banned from travelling to a foreign country.

Inverse: If the US Govt DOES NOT disseminate the registrant list to other countries, then there IS NOT a possibility that a registrant is banned from travelling to a foreign country.

The statement is vague on the culpability of the US Govt restricting travel and probably quite a burden to prove. The inverse is quite precise upon the culpability of the US Govt restricting travel to a registrant – which is unconstitutional as it is a form of punishment.

A registrant needs just one country with a restriction ban as proof of restriction. I believe that is why National RSOL is trying to collect registrants’ experiences of being detained or not allowed into another country as EVIDENCE of proof that the US Govt is, in fact, directly culpable in the restricting and harassment of registrants travelling abroad. The more proof National RSOL has, the more difficult the US Govt has to get out from under the rock called the Constitution.

@ Robert

Oh gosh. Ok. Thank you very much for your input.

Because a person is registered, no matter the actual threat, USMS will send an alert. And then place blame or responsibility upon the foreign country for the denial of entry. There is no due process here.

I know that China has strict laws but has anyone traveled to Hong Kong?

Well said, Craig.

Will be taking a trip to HK in a few months. I have been to Hong Kong this past year without issues. I was wondering if i will have problems TRANSITING through China.