7-30-2010 Washington DC:
International Megans Law (IML) (HR 5138) sailed through the House based on a few speeches on "Sex Tourism" and "Human Trafficking," horrible crimes that are being committed, but, by who?
If you listened to the House speakers on July 27, 2010 they would have you believe thousands of folks on the U.S. Registry are committing "sex tourism" type crimes, but the truth was hidden within those speeches!
Who done it and what did they do?
The key comment was by Ms. Berkley (D-NV-1), here is what she said:"Between 2003 and 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cooperated with INTERPOL and foreign law enforcement agencies to investigate cases of the sexual exploitation of children abroad, obtaining 73 convictions for such crimes committed in other countries."Examining that, there were 73 crimes in total to support this legislation, spread over 7 years. That amounts to roughly 10 per year. No other statistic was presented showing any more crimes, zip.
Next, it says, U.S. Immigration cooperated with Interpol and foreign law enforcement to investigate cases of sexual exploitation abroad. OK, there was a joint investigation and 73 people were caught, but, where were they from, it doesn't say. No mention or evidence showing, that those offenders were U.S. Registered Sex Offenders. Those offenders could very easily have been citizens of foreign countries, possibly involved in "Sex Tourism" and using a U.S. Visa bring children into the U.S., we just don't know. Why were speeches so vague?
It also says the crimes were committed "abroad" and for unknown reason, the countries where the crimes were committed chose not to prosecute the 73 offenders. Why? Is it possible the alleged crimes, were not crimes under that country's law? If so, why is the U.S. using some jurisdictional hook to prosecute them here in the U.S.? Or, were the offenders prosecuted in the country of the crime? Again, speeches were vague on these points.
What was the connection between the 73 offenders and the United States? Were they U.S. citizens? If so, had they been convicted of a sex crime before these? Were they foreign citizens entering the U.S. on a visa? It is impossible to tell from the speeches, again vague.
OK, assuming arguendo, they were U.S. registered sex offenders, The latest figures from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's map of the number of RSOs in the U.S. shows 716,750 registrants (which is doubtful considering it is the result of phone conversations not any audit of registries). So the percentage of U.S. RSOs that would be involved in such foreign crimes is 73/716,750 = .01018% yes that is LESS THAN 1%, its 1/10th of 1%. The speeches did not mention this. Again, if these were U.S. RSOs, or maybe they were other U.S> citizens never before convicted of a sex crime? We cannot tell, Congress doesn't want us to know.
It will cost what to find them?
The Congressional Budget Office estimates, that it will cost the American Taxpayers $252 million over 2011-2015 to implement IML assuming money is actually appropriated. That amounts to: $252 million/5 years (Difference between 2011 and 2015) or 50.4 million per year. And, if it costs $50,400,000 per year that also means the U.S. would be spending $5,040,000 to capture EACH of the 10 offenders per year committing this type of crime. And, that is $5 million in administrative costs for IML without the costs of investigating the crime in a foreign country, then add the costs of imprisoning the offenders. Is it any wonder why the U.S. is going BROKE.
I don't say these offenders should go free, but this is beyond reasoning, today we have a Congress that is going NUTS!
So, in essence, if IML becomes law, that means the $252 million is tacked onto the other already spiraling costs for the Adam Walsh Act. Oh yes, I forgot, the CBO also says, there are Unfunded Mandate costs to states and local jurisdictions somewhere below $70 million per year, but thats OK the American taxpayer is oblivious of what Congress is doing. States are already going broke, and IML will dump another $70 million or a bit less on them?
In summary, statistics show that 73 sex tourism type crimes, allegedly committed by U.S. citizens, some may be registered sex offenders, or foreigners visiting the U.S. on a visa, were committed over 7 years (2003-2009). And, IML will cost -in administrative costs- $252 million over 5 years (2011-2015) which breaks down to, and will cost the American taxpayer, $5,040,000 per crime committed, if such crimes are committed in the future.
How many RSOs will travel annually?
The next absurdity is from the Congressional Budget Office:"Based on information from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), CBO expects that in most years about 10,000 sex offenders covered by the bill would travel internationally.""Expects" about 10,000 sex offenders (I assume they mean RSOs) would travel internationally, annually. OK, so what? For discussion sake lets assume there is some truth to that 10,000 number, and its not a WAG number.
Notice the fortune telling, expects 10,000 will travel, someone has a crystal ball. However they came up with that number is not disclosed by the CBO office. I wonder, if they were able to track 73 crimes committed between 2003 to 2009, why do they not know, how many sex offenders traveled those years. Are there no records of who traveled those years, or do they not want to reveal the real number of sex offenders that did travel those years? Assuming they keep travel records, they could easily compare those records to who is now in the national registry.
They simply do not want the public to know the truth. But, there is another reason for the 10,000 crystal ball number. Income projections, IML will be charging RSOs a $25.00 Travel Application Fee (actual name is unknown but fee is mentioned in CBO report), and that will show some $250,000 income from IML. Thats the reason for the "Expected" number, income projections to bamboozle the public.
I'll leave with this question, if a RSO travels to multiple countries, does the fee cover multiple countries?
RSOs traveling abroad will comply with SORNA, how?
The Congressional Budget Office estimates there are 173 countries where IML will establish registries for RSOs to register with while traveling abroad.
Now, IML will be folded into SORNA, and traveling RSOs will have to comply with the combined laws. If someone is on vacation abroad, is it likely they will change the hotel/motel/boarding house they are residing in, weekly or even daily. Next, assume a RSO travels to China, which is some 3,696,000 square miles, and the United States is 3,717,813 square miles, follow me closely, how many possible places in the U.S. are there where a RSO can Register, versus ONE in China. Does everyone get the point? China is only one country that presents that problem, it will rear its ugly head in virtually every country of the world.
Oh, and when a RSO changes his/her residence while traveling and isn't home in the U.S. for an 'Address Check," what happens? Yes, IML will eventually get it and not require "Address Checks" -at home- while traveling abroad. But, doesn't that mean SORNA is not being complied with? And, who will be doing "Address Checks" on U.S. RSOs, in foreign countries? Ahhh, a cost that hasn't yet been figured out, which is OK the U.S. taxpayer will foot that bill too.
Let me not forget, RSOs must report traveling arrangements -30 days before actually traveling- and if not they have violated IML/SORNA and can be prosecuted. Lets see, if you are on vacation traveling and changing residence weekly or daily, can you still comply with the 30 day requirement? Is this another one of those hidden entrapment schemes of SORNA?
Maybe its me, no one in Congress mentioned things like this, reason, is it really their belief that RSOs traveling to foreign countries, are only doing so to commit "sex tourism" crimes and once they get somewhere, they will stay there until coming back to the U.S.?
The real cost to RSOs is?
Intriguing is this from the CBO:"The bill also would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on individuals who have been convicted of certain sex offenses, but CBO estimates that the aggregate direct costs of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation)."And from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, is this definition:"(9) PRIVATE SECTOR.—The term ‘private sector’ means all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, and educational and nonprofit institutions, but shall not include State, local, or tribal governments.Drawing from all sources mentioned, this refers to the $25.00 fee that will be charged to RSOs that travel internationally, but is that all the costs to those RSOs?
I guess Congress considers insignificant that, RSOs will incur costs to and from reporting to a U.S. registration agency -30 days in advance- their travel arrangements. And, the costs -while on ex: vacation- to and from the ONE registration place in the country they visit, or many such registration places if visiting multiple countries.
Further, Congress has ignored the problem with returning to the U.S. where RSOs are at the mercy of planes, trains, taxi and other modes of transportation in third world countries which may prevent RSOs from complying with the 30 day rule. I can just picture a RSO beating his camel across the desert to get to the reporting place on time; and you have to feed those animals. And, if one is mountain climbing, getting down the mountain to report timely, then getting back up to be with others he traveled with; costs? These scenarios and others are not uncommon if one is on vacation, but, I forgot, RSOs only travel to commit sex tourism crimes, according to Congress.
On a more serious note, IML does not exempt RSOs from STATE reporting requirements while traveling; States require 10 day notices before leaving the state, will RSOs be required to -BEFOREHAND- let states know where they will be, abroad, specific addresses? If so, there is a cost for this as well. Then can states prosecute if RSOs fail to timely report traveling arrangements, or are not at the abroad addresses if the state checks? SORNA imposed many things on States, IML fails to even consider the impact of IML on state requirements, for traveling RSOs; and time frames will states have to implement "traveling requirements" for RSOs.
Issues abound with IML and I could go on for hours, but one issue boils to the top, the possibility of the retroactivity of IML. SORNA is retro to the beginning of time, will any provision of IML be allowed to be construed in a retroactive sense, I hope not, but Congress has not prevented that, and SORNA as currently written leaves that construction to the U.S. Attorney General. Congress continues to fail to recognize the consequences of their actions, and some RSO may pay the price.
International Megans Law and International Law?
In preparation for the passage of IML Rep. Poe of Texas, a former judge, introduced a new bill HR-5870 the intent of which is to..., see the following:SECTION 1. RESTRICTION OF PASSPORTS OF CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS.
(a) In General- The Secretary of State may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued to an individual who is a sex offender (as defined in section 111(1) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911(4)) who is--(1) included in the National Sex Offender Registry established pursuant to section 119 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 16919); or
(2) required to register in a jurisdiction's sex offender registry under title I of such Act and with respect to whom information may be maintained in the National Sex Offender Registry under such section 119.
In other words, revoke a passport, or, restrict or limit it (how is not explained), on the grounds that the former sex offender is a registrant of a U.S. state or U.S. national registry. He does not propose to act similarly with a visa granted to a citizen of a foreign country. Why is unknown. Are there other countries which have former sex offender registries of their citizens? I know there are, but travelers to the U.S. of those registrants are ignored, only former U.S. sex offenders are targeted!
The United Nations (International Law division) assures every human being certain rights, they are identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, portions of which are applicable to IML, they are:Article 7.No construction is necessary, that declaration of rights is clear.
•All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 11.
•(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
•(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
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.
Article 14.
•(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
•(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
•(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
•(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 30.
•Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
In closing:
Does IML carry out SORNA goals? IML merely documents which registrants are traveling internationally, and ignores SORNA's goal, to monitor and verify registrants where they reside, work and are employed, even if abroad! IML stops at the foreign place of registration! Congress fails..
Congress -through speeches enacting IML- are exploiting registrants of U.S. registries, under the pretext of worldwide child safety, using rhetoric -true of the broad issue of sex tourism- but without reasonable foundation that such is true of registrants of U.S. registries. Congress uses rhetoric to imply a problem caused by thousands of U.S. RSOs, and also into the future. Why? Is the usual politics playing a part here?
While I support ridding the world of sex tourism, I do not believe IML is the way, in fact, IML will be a long term ball and chain on the U.S. taxpayer with no recognizable public safety rewards.
Have a great day and a better tomorrow,
eAdvocate
(It is hoped that folks will find something here to construct letters to Congressmen, especially Senators, who hold the fate of IML in their hands right now. It is likely this bill is on the FAST TRACK to passage. Remember, it passed the House 7-27-2010 on the anniversary of the signing of the Adam Walsh Act, +1 day.)
Sources:
House Report 111-568
Congressional Budget Office Report for IML 7-21-2010.
House Testimony 7-27-2010 (Copied from Thomas website)
The United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
