New Passport Rules for Sex Offenders

1-11-18 National:

The US State Department
has begun revoking the passports of registered child sex offenders. The change has been made in order to comply with a law passed last year, the International Megan’s Law. Under the new law, registered sex offenders who have been convicted of an offense against a minor will no longer be able to use their current passports. Instead, they will have to apply for new sex offender passports that identify them as registered child sex offenders. The new passports will have a statement printed on the inside back cover that reads, “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).”

The new law will not limit the ability of registered child sex offenders to leave the country. However, the identifying marker in the new passports is very likely to prevent affected people from being allowed to enter other countries. The only convicted sex offenders in the United States who are not able to get passports at all are people who have been convicted of sex tourism crimes. (Most convicted felons are able to get normal passports in the United States. The main exception is people who have been convicted of international drug trafficking.) ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Scarlet-Letter Passports Are Unjust and Irrational

11-1-17 Washington DC:

The new "unique identifier" for sex offenders stigmatizes people who pose no threat.

The notice, which will appear on the second-to-last page of U.S. passports, is officially known as an "endorsement," but it is more like a badge of shame. "The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor," it says, "and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l)."

The scary notation, which was revealed this week, is the State Department's response to a 2016 law requiring that the passports of certain registered sex offenders include a "unique identifier" to help maintain their status as pariahs wherever they travel. Although the warning is supposedly aimed at stopping sexual predators from abusing children in other countries, it will mark the passports of many people who pose no such threat. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Renounce U.S., Here's How IRS Computes 'Exit Tax'

2-28-17 Washington DC:

There is considerable talk today about leaving America, and the head count is up. Of course, the numbers are still small compared to those who are arriving. And despite the rhetoric, it is rarely political. Some of it is about family, and about the pressures of America’s global tax reporting and compliance regime, including FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).

Giving up a U.S. passport is not to be taken lightly, nor is giving up a long term (8 years or more) green card. For some, there is even an IRS tax on your exit. You pay tax on all your income every year. The Exit Tax is like an estate tax on the gain in your assets, even though you are not actually selling anything. It is the IRS’s last chance to tax you.

The Exit Tax is computed as if you sold all your assets on the day before you expatriated, and had to report the gain. Currently, net capital gains can be taxed as high as 23.8%, including the net investment income tax. For a time, Congress talked of hiking the tax to 30% after Eduardo Saverin of Facebook fame took off for Singapore. Still, 23.8% is nothing to sneeze at. There are three triggers for the Exit Tax, and any one of them will make you a “covered expatriate.”

First, is your net worth over $2 million? This is the aggregate net value of worldwide assets. It is not just your U.S. assets. For married taxpayers, each spouse’s net worth is calculated separately from the other. If they own their assets relatively equally, a married couple could have a total net worth of up to $4 million without triggering the Exit Tax.

On the other hand, if one spouse owns most of the assets, that spouse could be a covered expatriate, even if the other spouse owns significantly less than $2 million of assets. Thankfully, some couples can gift assets to each other to bring both spouses’ net worths to below $2 million. If the spouse receiving the gifts is a U.S. citizen, these gifts may escape U.S. gift tax. ..Continued.. by Robert W. Wood

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Child Sex Offenders Will Get Warning Stamp On Passport

A child is a person who is under 18 according to federal law (AWA).

9-28-16 California:

A federal judge said the rights of registered sex offenders are not violated because of a stamp on their passports that alert foreign governments of the offender's past crimes.

Seven registered sex offenders sued he federal government over the stamp issue, but U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the group hadn't proven they would be hurt by the practice, which is a result of the International Megan's Law, which warns foreign governments of registered sex offenders entering their countries.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, because they have not alleged a certainly impending injury fairly traceable to the International Megan's Law provisions that they challenge, or which is redressable by the relief sought in the first amended complaint," Hamilton wrote, according to Courthouse News Service. "Because the passport provisions are not yet in effect (and the procedures have not been finalized), plaintiffs cannot show a certainly impending injury."

Hamilton added: "Plaintiffs speculate regarding the possible impact of a passport identifier, suggesting that individuals carrying such passports will be at risk of harm from unknown third parties. Such speculation cannot provide a basis for challenging the statute when the identifier provisions have not even been implemented. Because it is unknown what form the identifier will take, or any of the other details previously discussed, plaintiffs cannot show that they will suffer hardship if the court withholds review."

Janice Bellucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, all of whom filed anonymously, said her clients would be put in danger when traveling to foreign countries.

“Our U.S. federal government is telling other countries that the person they’ve just marked on the passport is likely to engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism,” Bellucci said, according to SF Gate.

One of the plaintiffs said he needed to travel to Iran to claim an inheritance, but the stamp could put his life in danger. And Bellucci said she believes the court's ruling is essentially waiting for that to happen before reconsidering the protocol.

"You have to wait until somebody travels to Iran and they're murdered because their passport has been stamped," she said.

But Hamilton said a factual statement is not an opinion of character and shouldn't necessarily be considered a disparaging remark of that person.

"It is not the speech of the passport holder that is at issue, any more than the speech of the holder of a government-issued identification card is at issue with regard to identifiers such as name, date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,” the judge wrote. ..Source.. by Ray Brown

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rules against sex offenders in challenge to new federal law

9-26-16 California:

A Bay Area federal judge says the rights of registered sex offenders will not be violated by a new U.S. law that will stamp their legal status on their passports to notify the governments of countries they visit.

The statute, known as the International Megan’s Law and signed by President Obama in February, was largely directed at sex traffickers. It requires the State Department to mark the passports of all registered offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes involving minors.

If sex traffickers is the real focus of the law, then the application to ALL convicted of crimes related to minors, including romeo and juliet type offenses, is misdirected; typical political way of further punishing former offenders!

Seven unnamed sex offenders challenged the law, saying it would place them on an international “blacklist” and expose them to harassment and physical harm for past offenses that had nothing to do with sex trafficking. One man said he would probably be killed when he returns to his native Iran to receive an inheritance if his passport bears a sex-offender stamp.

On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the offenders’ lawsuit was premature because the State Department has not yet adopted regulations to implement the law. But Hamilton also said the law, when it takes effect, will be a legitimate measure to protect children from sexual exploitation.

The government has an interest in “preventing U.S. persons from committing acts of sexual abuse or exploitation in other countries and in facilitating cooperation with and reciprocal notifications from other countries” whose residents travel to the United States, Hamilton said.

She noted that the U.S. government already notifies any foreign country where a registered child sex offender plans to travel, and issued 2,100 such notifications last year. Stamps on passports lets host countries know when an offender changes previous travel plans, Hamilton said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the law unfairly stigmatizes offenders whose crimes may have been committed decades ago. While California requires most convicted sex offenders to register for life, most other states drop the requirement if an offender can show rehabilitation after a certain number of years. The federal law, however, would require passport stamps for those offenders as well.

But Hamilton said the U.S. Supreme Court “has already found that any stigma associated with convictions for sex offenses is a product of the sex offenders’ prior conviction and cannot be attributed to sex offender registration and notification laws.” ..Source.. by Bob Egelko

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge dismisses lawsuit over sex offender passport marker

Clearly the mark violates U.S. Supreme court precedent set in Wooley v Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1997) which held that the government cannot force someone to PHYSICALLY carry the government's message. Passports will be carried by the person they are issued to, which have the "unique identifier" on them.

UPDATE 9-23-16: See message from Janice Bellucci

UPDATE 11-15-16: Notice of Appeal Filed in IML Case

9-23-16 Washington DC:

A lawsuit challenging a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children is premature because the marker provision is not yet in effect, a federal judge said Friday in a ruling dismissing the suit.

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said it was also not clear yet who would be subject to the passport identifier and what form the identifier would take.

The Department of Justice has said the passport identifier provision of the International Megan's Law will not go into effect until officials have developed a process for implementing it, submitted a report to Congress and taken other steps.

President Barack Obama signed the legislation in February. It also requires that other countries are notified that registered sex offenders are traveling there.

The DOJ says the law attempts to address cases where people evade such notifications by traveling to an intermediate country before going to their final destination.

Opponents of the marker have called it a "Scarlet Letter" that would wrongly imply that passport holders had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism and subject them to danger.

Janice Bellucci, the attorney challenging the law, said she plans to file another lawsuit in a different district court.

"It really is our goal to prevent anybody's passport from being marked with a conspicuous, unique identifier," she said. ..Source.. by SFGate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Dept. restricts passports for sex offenders

Readers need to know that Congress has the power to change laws, one example is: Don't pay taxes if they are above xxx. Bingo, Congress granted the IRS the right to pull said passports! Now, If Congress has that power, it can do the same to sex offenders through the State Dep't! Things may change if the lawsuit is heard..

9-1-16 Washington DC:

The State Department is threatening to take away the passports of certain sex offenders (Sex offenders convicted of SEX TOURISM).

Federal law requires registered sex offenders to display a unique mark on their passports to notify officials in foreign governments when they travel abroad. Passports that do not contain the mark could be confiscated, the State Department said Thursday.

The rule is linked to a law signed in February by President Obama that aims to crack down on sex trafficking. Government officials say it will put foreign officials on the lookout for sex offenders.

But the move has drawn backlash from sex offenders, who argue it is paramount to a “scarlet letter.”

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit ((saying a legal challenge is premature because officials haven’t developed plans for the markings yet.)) filed earlier this year by anonymous sex offenders but left room for the challenge to proceed after the State Department issued the final rule.

The department will also deny passports to tax evaders who owe “seriously delinquent tax debt,” as well as people who do not provide an accurate Social Security number.

The rule goes into effect immediately.

The State Department skipped the public comment period under the “good cause” provision that allows for regulations of particular importance that serve the public interest to be published more quickly.

"The Department believes that public comment on this rulemaking would be unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest,” it wrote. ..Source.. by Tim Devaney

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offenders Fight Passport 'Scarlet Letter'

"Bellucci sees it differently. "Only Nazi Germany and Communist Russia have marked the passports of their citizens in this way and that was done decades ago," she said, warning that "citizens of this nation should be afraid, very afraid.""

2-9-16 National:

The International Megan's Law bill signed by President Barack Obama on Monday requiring sex offenders to be identified on their passports is already being challenged in court.

The civil rights group California Reform Sex Offender Laws filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking.

The original Megan's Law was passed by the New Jersey Legislature in 1994 after 7-year-old Megan Kanka was assaulted and murdered by a sex offender living across the street. The legislation, which requires authorities to disclose where convicted child offenders live, has since been adopted by every other state.

The International Megan's Law, which Congress passed unanimously on Feb. 1 and Obama signed on Monday, is designed to alert foreign governments when registered sex offenders travel abroad and help prevent sex trafficking crimes.

Under the new law, passports issued to registered sex offenders will contain an identifying mark. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are to inform foreign governments when registered sex offenders are visiting their countries and are to receive information when sex offenders come to the United States from abroad.

Janice Bellucci, president of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws, says the required mark on sex offenders' passports is akin to "a scarlet letter."

"Today the Scarlet Letter will be used to punish sex offenders. Tomorrow the same or a similar letter could be used to punish Muslims, gays or drunk drivers," she said.

Bellucci, who is representing four anonymous sex offenders in their lawsuit against the government, said Congress did not provide adequate attention to the legislation and passed it by voice vote and without substantial discussion or debate.

"The process used for the vote - suspension of the rules - was an abuse of a Congressional rule that is supposed to be limited to noncontroversial bills, not historically significant bills like International Megan's Law," Bellucci said.

The sex offenders argue in their complaint that the legislation applies in blanket fashion to all registered sex offenders, regardless of the circumstances or age of their conviction or whether they pose a current risk to public safety.

"For example, covered individuals whose passports will now publicly identify them as 'sex offenders' will include individuals convicted of minor misdemeanor offenses such as 'sexting' or public urination, individuals convicted of voluntary sexual contact with a girlfriend or boyfriend while both were teenagers, individuals convicted decades ago and who have never reoffended, and even individuals who are currently minors or who committed their offense while a minor," the complaint says.

The list of individuals who will have to have the identifying mark on their passports will also include those who are no longer required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction, according to the complaint.

This will "harm thousands of Americans who have been declared by a state to be rehabilitated and are no longer required to register as sex offenders. The federal government in such cases will substitute its own judgment, which will not be based upon an investigation of an individual, for the judgment of a state government that has conducted such an investigation," Bellucci said.

Being forced to identify themselves as sex offenders "will invite serious risk of physical harm and harassment" on the offenders, their families and anyone with whom they are traveling, the complaint says.

The law also violates the First Amendment by compelling people "to identify themselves publicly as 'sex offenders' on their United States passport, which serves both as a primary form of identification within the United States as well as an essential international travel document," the complaint says.

Lawmakers, however, say that the legislation is an important step in expanding the protection of children globally.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, said that the "reinforcing provisions of this carefully crafted legislation" will prevent "convicted U.S. sex offenders from harming children abroad" and will "help stop those seeking to end run the registry and notification programs."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat and vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee which funds the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department, said that the law will give the departments the tools they need to protect children at home and abroad.

"We have made some amazing progress over the years, starting out with billboards and milk cartons. But as crimes have grown more sophisticated, we've had to become more sophisticated," she said.

Bellucci sees it differently.

"Only Nazi Germany and Communist Russia have marked the passports of their citizens in this way and that was done decades ago," she said, warning that "citizens of this nation should be afraid, very afraid." ..Source.. by ELIZABETH WARMERDAM

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Obama Just Signed a Really Bad Criminal Justice Law

2-9-16 National:

After months of hype about the historic bipartisan consensus that we must make the American criminal justice system less harsh, President Obama finally signed a justice reform bill into law Monday. There’s only one problem: Instead of making the justice system more fair and less punitive, the new law will make it more vindictive and petty. Specifically, it will require people who have been convicted of sex crimes against minors to carry special passports in which their status as registered sex offenders will be marked with conspicuous identifying marks.

The point of International Megan’s Law, in the words of its House sponsor Chris Smith of New Jersey, is to prevent “sex tourism” by making it harder for people to “hop on planes and go to places for a week or two and abuse little children.” In addition to the passport stamp, this goal is supposed to be achieved through the formation of a new federal unit inside of Immigration and Customs Enforcement called the “Angel Watch Center,” which will inform foreign governments when American sex offenders have made plans to visit their countries.

You might be thinking that sounds like a good idea—a wise precaution that promises to prevent confirmed perverts from victimizing more people. But like the domestic sex offender registry it’s based on, the law is premised on a profound and consequential misunderstanding of how sex crimes against minors are usually perpetrated. Though it’s understandable that parents are concerned about “stranger danger,” the most recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that the vast majority of sex abuse victims are attacked not by strangers hunting for prey, but by family members and other acquaintances.

Chart in Original:

The other myth the new law perpetuates is that people who commit sex crimes are much more likely than other types of criminals to recidivate and find new victims after they’ve been released. A BJS report shows that insofar as that’s true, we’re still talking about a tiny percentage of people: According to the findings, just 5.3 percent of the 9,691 released sex offenders in the study sample were rearrested for a sex crime within three years of their release. Among male child molesters specifically, recidivism appears to be even lower: of the 4,295 male child molesters in the sample, just 3.3 percent were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within three years of their release.

It’s difficult to understand, in light of these findings, how making it harder for sex offenders to travel internationally is going to help reduce the frequency of child sex abuse. What will the new law achieve instead? Further marginalization of a group of people that Democrats and Republicans alike apparently consider to be deserving of permanent social exile and never-ending suspicion.

To state the obvious, it's hard for many people to summon much sympathy for sex offenders, and that is perfectly understandable. However, it’s crucial to remember that the category includes all sorts of people, including those who were placed on the registry when they themselves were children. Here’s how Rep. Bobby Scott put it in a statement on the House floor in which he expressed his opposition to the idea of marking sex offenders’ passports with a special indicator:

The failure of this provision to allow for the individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the traveler’s criminal history, including how much time has elapsed since his last offense, underscores how this provision is overbroad. Details such as whether the traveler is a serial child rapist versus someone with a decades-old conviction from when he was 19-years-old and his girlfriend was 14 … are significant, and would allow law enforcement to more appropriately prioritize their finite resources.

Scott also argued that “it is simply bad policy to single out one category of offenses for this type of treatment,” noting that “we do not subject those who murder, who defraud the government or our fellow citizens of millions and billions, or who commit acts of terrorism to these restrictions.” ..Continued.. by Leon Neyfakh

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

SEX OFFENDERS FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INTERNATIONAL MEGAN’S LAW

2-9-16 National:

A lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court, Northern District, San Francisco Division, challenging International Megan’s Law, which requires the Secretary of State to add “unique identifiers” to the passports of American citizens. The law requires federal agencies to notify foreign countries that American citizens will be traveling to their country.

“For the first time in the history of our country, a Scarlet letter will be added to the passports of American citizens,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Today the Scarlet Letter will be used to punish sex offenders. Tomorrow the same or a similar letter could be used to punish Muslims, gays and/or drunk drivers.”

President Obama signed the International Megan’s Law bill into law on February 8, only four days after the White House received it. Congress passed the bill on February 1.

“Congress failed to provide adequate attention to this historic legislation when it passed the law by voice vote and without substantive discussion or debate,” stated Bellucci. “The process used for the vote – suspension of the rules – was an abuse of a Congressional rule that is supposed to be limited to noncontroversial bills, not historically significant bills like International Megan’s Law.”

The original version of HR 515 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 26, 2015. The U.S. Senate amended the bill on the Senate floor on December 17, 2015, by adding the passport provisions.

“The citizens of this nation should be afraid, very afraid, that a unique identifier will be added to their passports,” stated Bellucci. “Only Nazi Germany and Communist Russia have marked the passports of their citizens in this way and that was done decades ago. “

Passports today are used as a primary form of identification as well for entry into a foreign country. A passport symbol that identifies an individual as a registered sex offender could place at significant risk that person as well as others traveling with them, including family members and business colleagues.

“The notification provisions of International Megan’s Law will harm thousands of Americans who have been declared by a state to be rehabilitated and are no longer required to register as sex offenders,” stated Bellucci. “The federal government in such cases will substitute its judgment, which will not be based upon an investigation of an individual, for the judgment of a state government that has conducted such an investigation.” by Press Release

CONTACT:
California Reform Sex Offender Laws
Janice Bellucci, President
ACLU Building – 1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(805) 896-7854

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial, Feb. 4, 2016: Passport marking for sex offenders would achieve nothing

2-4-2016 National:

There’s a lot that Congress is unwilling or unable to do, but it still can achieve one thing — finding a heavy-handed solution in search of a problem.

Republicans and Democrats have sent a measure to President Obama’s desk calling for special marks to be placed on the passports of sexual offenders against juveniles so that, maybe, somehow, it will allow other countries to do something — maybe turn travelers away. So then what happens? They come back home, probably.

There’s so much wrong with this intrusion into civil liberties that it’s hard to know where to start.

Some advocates have suggested that this scarlet letter on a passport will somehow curtail sex trafficking, but we’ve seem no statistical backup to support the theory.

It’s almost impossible for an immigration official of another country to determine what kind of offense the traveler has committed. That’s because some prosecutors have sought convictions with so much zeal that they have classified, say, a 19-year-old who had sexual relations with a 16-year-old in the same category as a serious, multi-timer offender who may be truly dangerous.

We agree that sexual offenders against juveniles should be punished for their crimes, but that doesn’t mean that they should forever be hounded and harassed. What’s next, marking passports for those with drug convictions? Burglaries?

Not every person convicted with a sex crime is the same. That’s why we have public trials, parole and probation. And we hardly trust a far-off government agency at the passport office to make decisions on who gets the special passport marking and who doesn’t.

Similar bills have been proposed in the past and have been widely rejected. President Obama should veto it this time.

Like other crimes, there’s a wide difference among offenders. We agree that there are some sexual predators who should be watched by probation officials even after they’re released from custody

But there are those whose likelihood of committing another crime is quite low. Law enforcement officials will tell you that they watch some registered sex offenders a lot more closely than others.

That’s the problem with one-size-fits all government actions like this passport gambit. We see no result of this policy that would protect anyone in any way. Does Congress really think that putting a mark on a passport would stop even one case of sexual assault?

We have no sympathy with those who prey on children. We agree that offenses should be aggressively prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean that a permanent black mark on every offender’s passport would achieve anything. ..Source.. by Monterey County Herald

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill to mark sex offender passports raises ire of criminal justice advocacy group

2-4-16 National:

Critics threaten to sue if made law

A criminal justice advocacy group is prepared to sue the federal government if President Obama signs into law a measure requiring child-sex offenders to be identified as such on their passports — a move they say is as hypocritical for a president pushing for broad criminal justice reform.

The House and Senate this week resolved differences in versions of the bill, known as the “International Megan’s Law,” which is meant to make it harder for pedophiles to travel abroad. The final version requires that individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors obtain a “unique identifier” on their passports that would alert immigration authorities in other countries of their prior convictions.

“This is the first time in the history of our country that any American citizen will have a unique identifier on their passport,” said lawyer Janice Bellucci, who as the president of the group California Reform Sex Offender Laws has brought prior lawsuits challenging sex offender laws. “Who is the next group? Is it going to be Muslims if Donald Trump becomes president?”

Though the White House has not yet indicated whether Mr. Obama intends to sign or veto the law, Ms. Bellucci said her organization is preparing to mount a legal challenge if it is adopted.

“We believe it violates so many constitutional rights of our citizens, we just cannot ignore it,” she said.

The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican, who has been pushing for the legislation for eight years. If signed into law by Mr. Obama, the legislation would also require any registered sex offender planning to travel abroad to inform law enforcement officials at least 21 days in advance; authorize a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify destination countries of those offenders’ intended travel; and to allow for information sharing with other countries to identify foreign nationals who are sex offenders planning to travel to the U.S.

“It is imperative and long overdue that the United States take the child protection lessons it has learned domestically with the successful notification systems first created by Megan’s Laws and expand them globally to prevent convicted U.S. sex offenders from harming children abroad,” said Mr. Smith in a statement released Monday following the passage of the law.

The law is named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who in 1994 was sexually assaulted and killed by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street from her family.

Over the last decade, lawmakers and courts have had a mixed take on sex offender laws. Several states, including Florida, Oklahoma and Louisiana require sex offenders to obtain a special driver’s license that identifies them as such. Meanwhile restrictions on where offenders could live have been struck down by courts in California, Massachusetts and New York.

Given the commitment that both Congress and the president have professed over the last year for criminal justice reform, advocates see the passage of the federal sex offender law as backsliding.

For 29-year-old Josh Gravens, who said he was placed on the Texas sex offender registry for an incident that occurred when he was 13, the stigma has already led to bouts of homelessness and trouble keeping a job. He fears that a “scarlet letter” on his passport will only marginalize him further when he travels.

“I believe that if the president really means what he says about criminal justice, he will veto the bill,” said Mr. Gravens, who through his advocacy group Organize Justice, has pushed for broad criminal justice reform. “And I’m watching with anticipation that he keeps his promises.”

An official from the State Department, which would oversee the passport demarcation, declined to comment Wednesday on the legislation.

But according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office, the State Department in 2008 issued 4,500 passports to sex offenders of all categories. The State Department noted at the time however that there was “no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad.” ..Source.. by Andrea Noble is a crime and public safety reporter for The Washington Times. She can be reached at anoble@washingtontimes.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

International Megan's Law passes Congress on 2-1-16

You folks always hear me talk about Trickery and Behind Closed Doors when speaking about Congress. Lets review what happened with IML on 2-1-16, and how the public gets misled by misuse of House Rules. All times mentioned EST come from the Video upper right corner of screen (Or from Rep Smith's UTube account):

1) House Majority Leader's schedule of bills to be discussed 2-1 with votes at 6:30 PM (See graphic);

2) The House adjourned a few times during the day, caused public to give up watching C-Span.

3) Finally, IML came up for discussion LATE in the day, (4:20PM see video), but way before 6:30 PM when votes were scheduled.

4) As usual House Speaker (which by the way, they change who that is frequently, depends on who is doing nothing at any specific moment). Top pic started IML discussion, bottom pic finished discussions.

Speaker said, 40 minutes for debate allowed 20-20 for each side. Debate began, but it was LATE in the day and Smith KNEW most lawmakers would have already gone home or to diner. He begins.

5) Then Rep Boyle from PA starts his 20 minutes. Supposedly Boyle is the opposition, but he didn't oppose it instead he supported IML. Things went back & forth between Boyle and Smith for several minutes. Normally any objections would have come up during this time frame, but there is no one there, out to diner, set to come back at 6:30 to vote on bills as scheduled.

6) BINGO Smith moves to pass bill (4:50 PM See video), Speaker asks for objections and hears NONE, so Speaker then asks for a VOICE Vote, and if you listen carefully maybe 5 or so agree. This is way before the scheduled 6:30PM vote time. Bill has now passed into law, and will go to President for signature. (Follow this color way below) Total time on the floor 4:20 to 4:50 PM EST.

Now, folks need to learn HOW to read the Daily Digest (DD) (Has a wealth of info) which is published the day after proceedings. Here is DD for 2-1-16: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r114:@FIELD%28FLD003+d%29+@FIELD%28DDATE+20160201%29 Not sure link will keep, it may be temp but its still on the website, just ask me.

Scroll down to:

International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking: Concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 515, to protect children from exploitation, especially sex trafficking in tourism, by providing advance notice of intended travel by registered child-sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, and requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child-sex offender is seeking to enter the United States;

Pages H387-394

If you click on that H387-394, then #2, you will see

---

Page: H387 Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in...
Page: H388 Page: H389 Page: H390 GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Page: H391 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from...
Mr. PITTENGER. Chairman Smith, thank you so much for your leadership...
Page: H392 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from...
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 515, the International...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield the gentleman 1 minute.
Mr. ROYCE. At present, multiple U.S. Government agencies are working to combat...
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the...
Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from...
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, as elected Members of Congress, we must stand up for...
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my...
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Page: H393 Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I second the...
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 515,...
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 515 because it...
Page: H394

---

Unfortunately the links above are temporary and after this date will no longer work which is why we are showing below the detail of the relevant ones. Accordingly, Rep SCOTT (Yellow highlighted area) said:

---

I think my good friend, Ann Wagner, said a moment ago that Megan is an angel. Her parents are guardian angels. They have taken a pain, an agony, and a trauma that is incomprehensible and have worked tirelessly to get Megan's

[Page: H393]  GPO's PDF

Law enacted throughout the United States and in some other countries. This will take it to the next level and will establish that true reciprocal reciprocity regimen, whereby we notice, they notice, everybody knows what is going on to take the secrecy out of this travel when a convicted pedophile hops on a plane with the idea of exploiting children.    This will have a very measurable impact and will protect children from this kind of agony.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
   Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I second the comments that were made by Mr. Smith. I congratulate the family of Megan Kanka. Being a father myself of a 2-year-old daughter, I can't imagine losing a little girl, especially in the heinous way that they did.
   I remember very much when all of that happened. Hamilton, New Jersey, is only about 40 minutes up the road from where I live in Philadelphia, and I remember the ugly incident very well. The fact that here we are, so many years later, and the family still continues to fight for other little girls and little boys is really remarkable and is a testament to them.
   I also congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who I know has worked tirelessly on this bill for a long period of time.
   Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 515, International Megan's Law. While I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I am opposed to how one particular provision, added in the Senate amendment before us today, would work in practice.
   Other existing provisions of the bill already contain the following information-sharing requirements with and among law enforcement agencies here in the United States and abroad:
   U.S. sex offenders are required to provide international travel-related information to the sex offender registries;
   the Department of Homeland Security is required to create the Angel Watch Center to receive information on individuals seeking to enter the U.S. who have committed offenses of a sexual nature as well as registered sex offenders seeking to travel outside the U.S. in order to share all relevant information to federal, state, and local law enforcement officials;
   the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify law enforcement agencies of sex offenders seeking to leave the United States who have not transmitted their travel information to sex offender registries;
   the U.S. Marshal's Service is required to notify the international destination country of a sex offender's upcoming travel; and
   the Secretary of State should seek reciprocal international agreements or arrangements to further these goals.
   If our goal is to ensure that customs and border as well as law enforcement officials are notified so that they may track and investigate those sex offenders who may be engaging in sex tourism or pose a threat of absconding, these provisions have addressed those concerns.
   As a result, I am skeptical of what more we stand to gain by the Senate amendment's provision authorizing the Secretary of State to use a ``unique passport identifier for covered sex offenders'' that is defined as ``any visual designation affixed to a conspicuous location on the passport indicating the individual is a covered sex offender.'' At best, if this vague language is meant to describe some sort of code or symbol embedded in the passport that is only discernible by law enforcement at the border indicating that the traveler is a sex offender, it is redundant given the other information-sharing mandated by the bill's other provisions. However, if this is interpreted to mean something akin to the words ``sex offender'' stamped on the identification page of the passport, this raises serious problems and will lead to unintended consequences.
   First, it is simply bad policy to single out one category of offenses for this type of treatment. We do not subject those who murder, who defraud the government or our fellow citizens of millions and billions, or who commit acts of terrorism to these restrictions.
   Second, by treating all sexual offenders as one monolithic group ignores reality. While some pose a continued and real risk of reoffending and may be traveling to engage in sex tourism or other illicit acts, not all pose the same risk. Indeed, the failure of this provision to allow for the individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the traveler's criminal history, including how much time has elapsed since his last offense, underscores how this provision is overbroad. Details such as whether the traveler is a serial child rapist versus someone with a decades-old conviction from when he was 19-years-old and his girlfriend was 14, just missing the Romeo and Juliet exception by one year, are significant and would allow law enforcement to more appropriately prioritize their finite resources.
   Third, a traveler does not have any recourse with the foreign destination country if he or she is refused entry solely on the basis of this ``unique passport identifier.'' While the bill has some due process provisions, those apply only domestically. There is no recourse if a traveler is erroneously denied entry from the destination country.
   Fourth, if the ``unique passport identifier'' is implemented in a way that makes it obvious to not only law enforcement officials but any member of the general public viewing the passport, this could lead to unintended consequences of persecution and harm to the traveler. This is especially troubling given that no factual context about the offense is provided.
   If our goal is to ensure that domestic and foreign law enforcement and customs officials are notified of potential threats, multiple existing provisions of the bill already achieve that goal without raising these problematic implementation and fairness concerns.
   In summary, while I support the underlying goal of ensuring that American law enforcement agencies share information on potential child sex offenders with foreign law enforcement agencies, I have grave concerns about how the redundant and problematic provision regarding the ``unique passport identifier'', added as a Senate amendment, would work in practice. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.
   Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 515 because it seeks to protect our children from predators by identifying the whereabouts of sex offenders and providing means to monitor their activities.
   This legislation is important because sex trafficking of children is a displaceable act that we detest and has been an on-going concern for the United States.
   In addition to protecting our children from national threats, we must also consider the potential threat from international actors, especially during times of increased tourism, like for example the Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup, World Olympics and other major events around the world where tourism is high.
   This legislation by my friend Representative Smith aims to protect our children from exploitation, specifically sex trafficking in tourism, by providing advance notice of intended travel by registered child-sex offenders outside of the United States to the government of the destination country.
   This legislation is important because it requests that foreign governments notify the United States when a known child-sex offender is seeking to enter the United States.
   International child exploitation is increasingly becoming a top priority for all nations and certainly is for our country.
   For instance, two years ago, during the FIFA World Cup in Brazil, reports of child exploitation received global attention.
   According to the Department of State, Brazil is a destination country for children subjected to sex trafficking.
   For the case of Brazil, child sex tourists typically arrive from Europe and North America.
   According to reports, the Rio de Janeiro civil police identified eight hotels and restaurants involved in a child sexual exploitation network in two city areas.
   Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as you know, is where the World Olympics will be hosted this summer.
   According to the Huffington Post, major sporting event usually lead to a spike in the demand for sexual predatory activities.
   Unfortunately, these accounts of sexual predatory activity include child sex trafficking.
   Here at home, during the 2014 Super Bowl week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with 50 law enforcement agencies, recovered 16 teenagers during an enforcement action on child sex trafficking.
   Additionally, more than 45 pimps were arrested, some of whom claimed to travel to the Super Bowl location specifically for the purpose of prostituting women and children at the sporting event.
   According to Judy Kluger, Director of Sanctuary for Families, and former judge for New York City Criminal Court of New York County, New York, ``the Super Bowl could never not be breeding grounds for sexual exploitation.''
   If a location experiences an exponential increase in large numbers of men travelling for entertainment, it will proportionally see an increase in those who purchase sex.
   As you all know, I am committed to ensuring the protection of children, always championing the protection of children.
   As co-chair of the Children's Caucus, I commend the work of all my colleagues here in Congress, dedicated to protecting children here in the U.S. and across the globe.

[Page: H394]  GPO's PDF

   This is why I support this legislation and I commend Representative SMITH for championing legislative measures dedicated to the safety and protection of our children worldwide.

• [End Insert]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 515.
   The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendments were concurred in.
   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

---

OK, if you click on the other Pages you can find who said what, I'm not concerned with their misconstructions and heresay. IML is now history and going to the Pres.

OK, come 6:30 PM Likely when Rep SCOTT actually made his comments (Notice the word BEGIN INSERT above, just before his comments. This is how they piece things occurring on same date together)

So what we have is ONE Lawmaker AGAINST and all others never heard what he had to say. But remember they always says before debating a bill "

Mr. SMITH (or whoever) of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on this measure. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Video shows this..

They assume ALL lawmakers will read what others have said on a bill, and make comments within the 5-legislative-days time limit. Thats why I suggest folks to POUND AWAY at lawmakers to try to get other lawmakers to -at least comment for the record-. However this is where it would be political suicide for them to do that; SCOTT is a RARE BREED, a man well entrenched in Congress with hutspa.

I've also mentioned, DAILY at the beginning of a session, they have ONE MINUTE speeches, well those speeches get PHASED into the bill they pertain to, or are simply a lawmaker's remarks on a topic (all such remarks are phased into their logical place, late at night just before the "Daily Digest" is published), Rep SCOTT comments above were inserted into HR 515. The unfortunate thing about such comments is, they are not time stamped. Oh well...

As to the VOTE (Pink area above), this is real upsetting, remember House Majority Leader scheduled VOTES at 6:30 PM, well NOT So, they Voice Voted on the floor at end of debate. All is said and done.

Now even though Lawmakers have 5-legislative-days to put their comments in, it cannot change the voice vote. A voice vote is taken so that, no one knows WHO voted and WHO didn't vote; the public is left BLIND as to who they should be working on to change their minds, or at least consider further evidence.

Now some might say, well rules were suspended, so the vote could be taken anytime, true, but I ask why wasn't that true on the business bills heard before IML? See recorded votes on them:

47	1-Feb	H R 4168	On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass	P	Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act
46	1-Feb	H R 2187	On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended	P	Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act

Congress bends rules, breaks them, etc., when they want, and the public has no say in the matter.

In fact, when the House Majority Leader said, in his earlier schedule, the bill would be heard UNDER SUSPENSION of the RULES, it was decided, IML was not a controversial bill i.e., no one cared what happened with it, it was like naming a Post Office; who cares so Congress can do what it wants.

Suspension of the rules in the United States Congress: Is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives.

A motion to suspend the rules is in order on Mondays and Tuesdays and towards the end of a session of Congress and may only be made by the Speaker of the House or their designee, though it is customary for committee chairs to write the Speaker requesting a suspension. Once a member makes a motion to "suspend the rules" and take some action, debate is limited to 40 minutes, no amendments can be offered to the motion or the underlying matter, and a 2/3 majority of Members present and voting is required to agree to the motion.

A suspension motion sets aside all procedural and other rules that otherwise prohibit the House from considering the measure—but the motion never mentions the specific rules that are suspended. Typically, a suspension motion is phrased as a motion to "...suspend the rules and pass the bill," and, if the Motion is agreed to, the bill is considered passed by the House. A Member can also move to suspend the rules and take another action, such as to "suspend the rules and consider the bill," and the House shall take the proposed action if TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE VOTING are in favor of the motion.

Most often, bills "on suspension" are non-controversial legislation -- such as naming Post Offices of the United States Postal Service or federal buildings -- and nearly all bills that are considered under suspension rules have bipartisan support.

The real mockery of the rules is this "and the House shall take the proposed action if TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE VOTING are in favor of the motion." So if there are 10 lawmakers on the House floor, 2/3rds of 10 is what? Voice vote hides how many are on the floor; this occurred on AWA as well.

Did Smith invite just those who would support the bill? OH, I forgot, the majority were out to diner when the voice vote was taken, 4:50 PM (see video), did they kept adjourning so the IML would be heard when the fewest lawmakers were on the floor? Yes, I believe that.

OK, need anymore be said..................

---

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial Do sex offenders deserve a scarlet letter on their passport?

2-3-2016 National:

A fter rousing themselves from the 30-plus-year bad trip that was the war on drugs — or rather, the war on drug users — many Americans in and out of elected office looked around for someone else to persecute. Someone, somewhere, must be so depraved and hateful that liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans could join in common cause to vilify them.

They appear to have found their target: sex offenders. The current case in point is a congressional proposal to alert the nations of the world that particular U.S. citizens who have committed sex offenses against minors are planning to visit. Passports would be specially marked so that other countries could turn travelers away at the border because of old crimes for which they have already served their time in the U.S.

This vindictive bill has been wisely rejected numerous times in the past, but now it's heading to President Obama's desk. He should veto it.

Sex offenses against minors are particularly horrendous crimes. But when offenders have completed their sentences and periods of supervision, there is no more reason to continue hounding and harassing them than convicted murderers or drug traffickers, who don't bear scarlet letters on their passports.

But wait, some supporters argue, people who commit sex crimes against children are a special case. As soon as they've done it once, they'll want more, posing imminent danger to any underage person anywhere. Their front doors should be marked to warn trick-or-treaters. They should be banned from park benches.

This blatantly false argument thrives on ignorance. There are indeed mentally disordered sex offenders whose conditions make them extremely high risks to commit more crimes of the same variety. Some may target minors. But that is far different from saying that anyone convicted of a sex offense against a minor falls into that very narrow category. Corrections officials in California report that most sexual crimes committed by adults against minors occur among family members, and that the rate of recidivism is fairly low. ..Continued.. by The Times Editorial Board

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Obama Could Still Stop 'Megan's Law' From Making Sex Offenders Get Special Passports

2-2-2016 National:

For the first time in U.S. history, some citizens may be singled out for scarlet letters on their passports.

Both the U.S. House and Senate have signed off on a bill to brand registered sex offenders as such on their passports and require federal officials to notify foreign governments whenever certain offenders intend to travel there. The bill is now on its way to President Obama; it's unclear whether he'll sign.

If he does, it will be "the first time in U.S. history that any such special designation will appear on the passports of any U.S. citizens," writes lawyer and New America Foundation Senior Fellow David Post at The Volokh Conspiracy, "and I think it should send at least a small chill down all of our spines."

Dubbed "International Megan’s Law," the measure—sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.)—says the secretary of state must impart a "visual designation" in "a conspicuous location" on the passports of all "covered sex offenders." Covered sex offenders include anyone whose victim was a minor.

This is where people start to lose sympathy—for better or worse, most can't muster much concern for the constitutional rights of rapists and child molesters. But because of our overbroad sex-offender registry requirements, "covered sex offenders" may include teens who text each other explicit photos, men who offer to pay for sex with someone who is—known or unbeknownst to them—under 18, and statutory rape cases where the the age disparity between offender and victim is small and the relationship consensual. These people are already required to register with state and federal officials as sex offenders, thereby subjecting them to rules about where they can live, work, etc. Now they may face a lifetime of trouble traveling and perhaps even be prevented from entering certain countries entirely.

Beyond the injustice of it, there's no evidence that the law—applied broadly or even only to those accused of the most serious sex crimes—would actually thwart international human trafficking or sex tourism, the stated goal of the bill according to Rep. Smith. For one thing, the passport requirement would only apply to sex offenders done serving their sentences, obviously. But we have little reason to think most of these people will reoffend. As Reason contributor Lenore Skenazy points out at the New York Post, "the general belief is that sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates around—that they get out of prison only to offend again. Surprisingly, the opposite is true." A Bureau of Justice report places the sex-offender recidivism rate at 5.3 percent, a recidivism rate lower than any crime other than murder.

What's more, when it comes to those who have committed the most heinous crimes or are the most likely to reoffend, we already have a mechanisms in place to either prevent them from getting passports or notify foreign governments when they're traveling abroad. The Secretary of State can deny passports to people convicted of certain sex crimes, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Angel Watch" already notifies foreign officials when Americans convicted of certain sex crimes are traveling there. ..Continued.. by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Congress Acts to Mark Passports of Sex Offenders

2-2-2016 National:

Target of legislation is sex-traffickers; critics call it a ‘scarlet letter.’

Legislation requiring the State Department to identify registered sex offenders with a special mark on their passports received final passage in the House of Representatives on Monday night and went to President Obama’s desk. The White House has not indicated whether President Obama plans to sign the bill.

Called “International Megan’s Law” by its sponsors, the bill provides that offenders’ passports contain a “unique identifier” — as yet unspecified. Critics call it a scarlet letter. “Who is going to have a unique identifier added to their passport next? Is it going to be Muslims? Is it going to be gays?” asks Janice Bellucci, a civil rights attorney who has fought against sex offender registries.

Supporters say the bill will help prevent sex trafficking, since sex offenders “hop on planes and go to places for a week or two and abuse little children,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., told NJ.com. Multiple requests for comment made to Smith’s office were not returned.

In drafting the bill, Smith and others drew upon a 2010 GAO report that found that about 4,500 of the more than 16 million U.S. passports issued each year go to registered sex offenders. The report included a selected list of registered sex offenders who received passports in 2008, with detailed descriptions of their [PAST] crimes.

In a rebuttal printed as an appendix in the report, the State Department noted that there was no evidence anyone on that list had traveled in order to commit a sex crime, and that it already has the authority to deny passports to people convicted of sex tourism involving minors and those whose probation or parole terms forbid them from traveling.

“We think the report is very misleading,” the State Department wrote. “Starting with the title, ‘Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders,’ we are concerned that it conveys more ‘shock value’ than factual accuracy.”

Multiple studies have shown that sex offender registries do not prevent sex crimes and in fact can increase crime, by driving people on the registry away from legal employment, housing, and positive social networks.

In addition to the new passport marking, the law would codify an existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement program called “Operation Angel Watch,” which notifies officials abroad when registered sex offenders plan to travel to those countries.

Critics of the program say there are myriad reasons U.S. citizens might travel abroad that have nothing to do with past crimes: for work, to visit family, and for vacation. The “Angel Watch” notifications would still apply even in cases where crimes were committed decades prior, and when the crimes that landed people on the registry had nothing to do with sex trafficking or international travel.

Paul Rigney heads up a group in Dallas called Registrant Travel Action Group in which he is collecting stories of people whose status on the registry has interfered with international travel. One man wrote that he has a daughter in medical school abroad; he fears he won’t be able to travel to her graduation. One woman wrote that she and her husband wanted to take their three kids on a Carnival cruise, but “I received a letter denying me access to ever travel with them again due to my registration status. I was appalled and humiliated.”

Bob, who asked The Marshall Project to withhold his last name, arrived at an airport in the Phillippines to visit his wife, who lives there, only to be turned away. Several years prior he had pleaded guilty to a single count of Violation of Privacy — a “peeping Tom” charge that arose from a dispute with his ex-wife. He had traveled to the Philippines many times before, he says, but suddenly in 2012, unbeknownst to him, a “traveling sex offender alert” had been sent to the Philippine government. Because his immigration petition to bring his wife to the U.S. is still pending, these trips are the couple’s only way to see each other.

..Source.. by Lisa Iaboni/The Marshall Project

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill Would Make It Harder for Sex Offenders to Travel Abroad

Clearly this violates U.S. Supreme court precedent set in Wooley v Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1997) which held that the government cannot force someone to PHYSICALLY carry the government's message. Passports will be carried by the person they are issued to which have the "unique identifier."

2-1-16 Washington DC:

Registered sex offenders who have committed crimes against children will have a harder time traveling internationally under legislation Congress has sent to the president's desk.

The House passed the legislation by voice vote Monday after Senate passage in December. If signed by the president, the U.S. would let other countries know when a registered sex offender is traveling abroad. The United States would work with countries to receive information about sex offenders traveling here.

The State Department would also develop a way for U.S. passports to identify that a person is a sex offender.

Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey sponsored the legislation and has been pushing for it for eight years. It expands on a law that requires public notification of sex offenders in the United States. ..Source.. by Mary Clare Jalonick

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The yellow star, the scarlet letter, and ‘International Megan’s Law’

See also: Labeling sex offenders’ passports is overkill

1-7-2016 National:

When I was growing up, in a Jewish family in Brooklyn in the 1950s, Hitler and the Holocaust were common subjects of conversation in my household. Though at the time it all seemed like ancient history — along with the Civil War, the Black Death, the fall of Rome, and everything else that had ever happened before I was born — I realized, when I became an adult, that to my parents and their generation it must have seemed as though it had happened the day before yesterday.

I remember asking my dad, when he had been talking about the roundup of the Jews and the infamous “yellow star,” a simple question that deeply puzzled my 7-year-old brain: How did the Germans know who to round up? How did they know who was, and who wasn’t, Jewish? My own family wasn’t observant in the least — we didn’t go to synagogue, or celebrate the Jewish holidays, I didn’t go to Hebrew School, etc.; so if they were rounding up all the Jews in Brooklyn, how would they know about us?

And I vividly remember his reply: They knew it because in Germany, they recorded your religion on your birth certificate, and on all your other important government documents (ID card, passport, etc.). [I’m not sure that that was entirely accurate — but it does capture the substance of the matter***]. And, he reassured me, we — here in the United States — don’t allow that sort of thing.

I was reminded of all that by a provision in a statute that recently sailed through the House and Senate: “International Megan’s Law” (IML for short), ostensibly designed to “prevent child exploitation and other sexual crimes through advanced notification of traveling sex offenders.”

The statute (full text here) requires the secretary of state to affix a “unique identifier” on all passports issued to “covered sex offenders” — a “visual designation affixed to a conspicuous location on the passport indicating that the individual is a covered sex offender.” A “covered sex offender” is anyone previously convicted, at any point in his/her life, for a sex offense involving a minor.

It is, as far as I can determine, the first time in U.S. history that any such special designation will appear on the passports of any U.S. citizens, and I think it should send at least a small chill down all of our spines. Not to overdo the analogy, but it does call to mind Martin Niemoller’s famous dictum (“First they came for the communists . . .”). It is part and parcel of a dispiriting and disheartening campaign (on which I have commented a number of times in the past — see e.g. here, here and here) piling punitive disability upon punitive disability — not just public shaming, but also restrictions on residency locations, employment, Internet use, etc. — on this particularly despised class. ..Continued and worth reading.. by David G. Post is a Sr. Fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute. He taught intellectual property/Internet law at Georgetown and Temple Universities, and is the author of In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace. Views expressed are his own and should not be attributed to his affiliated institutions.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IRS Gets New Powers to Revoke Passports

1-5-2016 National:

Why did the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration give the IRS powers to revoke passports in order to collect federal taxes?

Submarined deep in the transportation bill passed by Congress last December was a bold, brand new power given to the IRS to collect taxes. If you have a federal tax debt amounting to $50,000 or more, starting this month, the IRS can get your passport cancelled by sending a message to the State Dept. to do so. That $50,000 includes penalties and interest.

Yes, people should pay what they owe, especially if they want to leave the country. But given the fact that the IRS collection unit has at times not been so state of the art, given the mistakes the IRS has already made in wrongfully emptying bank accounts and seizing assets, does anyone really think it’s okay for unelected bureaucrats to seize passports, blocking a basic freedom, that is freedom of movement?

The new law can be a big pain in the neck, since the federal government is now moving to enact a new identification card to supplant state identification, which are typically drivers’ licenses. That means in the interim travelers could be forced to use their passports at the airport check-in counter even for domestic travel, but they won’t be able to if the IRS yanks them.

The new law, entitled “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies,” could mean taxpayers will even be rejected for passports upon renewal.

Meanwhile, the IRS is still seizing bank accounts from small businesses without a warrant if the entrepreneur is making a series of small bank deposits.

The new IRS powers means that now more than ever taxpayers are being walled in. Americans have been renouncing their U.S. citizenship in record numbers, with analysts arguing many taxpayers are doing this because of the reach of the U.S. tax man. The Joint Committee on Taxation says the IRS’s new passport powers are expected to raise $398 million over 10 years. Currently, there are an estimated seven million U.S. citizens living abroad. People who live overseas often use their passports to check into hotels or open bank accounts, among other things.
Does anyone think the IRS’s execution of its new passport revocation power will be state of the art?

Already, the IRS is seizing bank accounts of small businesses without warning, much less a warrant. That happened in August 2013 to Carole Hinders, owner of a Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park in northwest Iowa. Hinders said the IRS seized about $33,000 from her checking account. Even though she was never accused of committing a crime, the IRS was suspicious because she made frequent small deposits. The IRS can seize accounts even though no charges have been filed, much less convictions won. ..Continued.. by Elizabeth MacDonald

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

A record 1,426 Americans return their passports

10-30-15 Global:

Main reason is taxes that requires a tax preparer

A record 1,426 Americans gave up their citizenship in the third quarter, according to new government data.

That puts the number of Americans who have renounced their citizenship at a whopping 3,221 so far this year. In 2014, a record 3,415 Americans gave up their passports, according to government data analyzed by CNNMoney.

An increasing number of Americans are bidding Uncle Sam farewell. Many are expats tired of dealing with complicated tax paperwork -- a headache that has increased lately as hefty tax regulations have kicked in. Last year, 15 times more Americans renounced their citizenship than in 2008.

Unlike most countries, the U.S. taxes citizens on all income -- no matter where it's earned, or where they live. For Americans living abroad, that means a mountain of paperwork so complex that expats are often forced to seek professional help, paying high fees to accountants and lawyers.

The headache is only getting worse. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act requires individuals to report certain foreign assets, and for banks to disclose all foreign accounts held by Americans. The new law comes on top of another rule that requires Americans to disclose foreign bank holdings above $10,000.

These regulations are part of a wider U.S. government move to battle tax evasion, especially after major Swiss banks admitted to helping Americans hide assets offshore.

But the campaign is making life difficult for the 7.6 million Americans living abroad. As financial institutions rush to understand FATCA, some overseas banks, both big and small, have kicked out their U.S. clients, leaving some without even basic checking and savings accounts.

If a bank mistakenly fails to report any accounts held by Americans outside the U.S., they can face steep penalties.

Of course, some Americans renouncing are extremely rich, and ditching their citizenship may mean they're able to pay lower taxes in the future.

But it remains illegal to renounce your U.S. status simply to shirk a tax bill, and giving up your passport now doesn't mean Uncle Sam can't track you down later for back taxes. ..Source.. by Sophia Yan

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...