International Megans law EXPOSED! Part-2 of the truth about HR 5138

8-3-2010 Washington DC:

You may remember my commentary of 7-30 "International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth about HR 5138."

The essence of that was, What evidence did speakers present to support the passage of "International Megans Law (IML)" HR-5138? Reviewing the speakers testimony all I could find was a singular comment about 73 crimes, and a rhetoric implying/accusing U.S. Registry folks as being a major cause of Sex Tourism crimes.

The comment by Ms. Berkley (D-NV-1), and 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."

Those 73 crimes were all that could be found to support what the speakers were saying, excepting rhetoric accusing or implying U.S. RSOs were the bad guys. Today we have the answer, the real truth why the speakers were vague about the number of crimes committed and who commits them.

Yesterday the "Department of Justice Released First National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction" (Click link to read). They also released a Report (279 pages 2.77meg VERY LARGE) which is the subject of this commentary. Within that report is our answer as to why the Congressional Speakers were vague.

The Report: The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, A Report to Congress, August 2010 (PDF 279 pgs). Essentially this is a "Threat Assessment" report to Congress, and is explained as follows:

"This Report attempts to marshal a massive amount of information about the nature of the child exploitation problem and the significant efforts being undertaken by federal, state, and local agencies to address this epidemic. To evaluate the extent and forms of child exploitation, between approximately February 2009 and February 2010, the National Drug Intelligence Center (“NDIC”) prepared a threat assessment (the “Threat Assessment” or “Assessment”) that is summarized in this Report.

In conducting the Threat Assessment, NDIC interviewed over a hundred prosecutors, investigators, and other experts in the field, conducted interviews to collect information, reviewed thousands of pages of documents from investigations, cases, relevant research, and analyzed data from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children." p-2 Report

Now their definition of "Sex Tourism" the crime Congress implied all U.S. RSOs of:

Child Sex Tourism: “Child sex tourism” refers to Americans or U.S. resident aliens traveling abroad for the purpose of sexually abusing foreign children (usually in economically disadvantaged countries). Americans, capitalizing on their relative wealth and the lack of effective law enforcement in the destination countries, easily purchase access to young children to engage in illicit sex acts, sometimes for as little as $5. Like child pornography and other Internet-facilitated crimes against children, the Internet has revolutionized the child sex tourism industry.

As a result, a new, emboldened crop of offenders are finding the navigation of travel in developing countries much easier than in the past. Additionally, the Internet allows like-minded offenders to gather and exchange information on how and where to find child victims in these foreign locations, making the offenders better informed about where sex tourism is prevalent and where law enforcement is lax. Numerous countries in Southeast Asia are so well-known for child sex tourism that there are entire neighborhoods which are considered brothels, and there are open-air markets where children can be purchased for sex. p-11 Report

Folks, that is a terrible implication which causes further hysteria over registrants, especially when it is not true, and even Romeo & Juliet crimes were being accused of that, as they too are part of the U.S. Registry.

Yesterday's Report covered eight different types of crimes, child sex tourism (CST) was one. CST is our concern because that alone was the basis of Congressional Speakers that FAST-TRACKED IML through the House on 7-27-2010 under the "suspension of the rules."

Accordingly, IML is based on "beliefs" of experts and "data" from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). That is the evidence behind IML, beliefs and data:

NCMEC data: Cyber Tipline, tips alone, not just those that resulted from some sort of investigation or criminal prosecution; tips alone. Anyone can call that Tipline and claim something happened, and whether or not there was truth behind that tip, it formed the basis for IML. This is unbelievable, tips are not crimes nor are they evidence of one!

Expert Beliefs: Here again, not specific cases or a specific number of convictions, just the beliefs of these experts. Prosecutors, investigators and other experts in the field. Their beliefs only!

Doesn't anyone believe in real evidence? Some numbers that can be verified, something tangible and verifiable! I have no doubt sex tourism is going on, but, by who, doesn't evidence count for something in Congress? I am getting the feeling that the U.S. is trying to become the savior of the world, and who they destroy in the process means nothing. OK, lets see charts from the Report:

SEX TOURISM (Appendix D-25)
Nature and Extent Among NDIC interviewees:

• 50 percent of respondents reported that their agency has not investigated or prosecuted any sex tourism cases.

• 25 percent of respondents reported that they encounter sex tourism cases very infrequently.

• 15 percent of respondents reported that sex tourism is a major vulnerability and there is potential for it to become a huge industry. The area deserves more attention than it has received.

U.S. Citizen and Resident Alien (RA) Involvement in Sex Tourism
Among NDIC interviewees:

• 35 percent of respondents reported that it is believed that the extent to which U.S. citizens and RAs are engaging in sex tourism is significant.

• 35 percent of respondents reported that the extent to which U.S. citizens and RAs are engaging in sex tourism is unknown because there is no data available on the topic.

Locations where U.S. Citizens and RAs are Engaging in Sex Tourism
Among NDIC interviewees:

• 67 percent of respondents reported that Thailand is a popular sex tourism destination.

• 56 percent of respondents reported that Mexico is a popular sex tourism destination.

• 44 percent of respondents reported that the Philippines are a popular sex tourism
destination.

• 44 percent of respondents reported that Asian countries are popular sex tourism
destinations.

• 33 percent of respondents reported that Cambodia is a popular sex tourism destination.

• 22 percent of respondents reported that third world impoverished countries and
developing countries are popular sex tourism destinations.

Folks, you can read, there is no need for me to repeat what is above, Congress doesn't have a shred of evidence that U.S. registrants are causing, or even participating in, sex tourism. So everything said before the U.S. House was hogwash, at least as to implying sex tourism is caused by registrants of U.S. registries.

The credibility of speeches made in the U.S. House on July 27, 2010 are definitely questionable, as they pertain to former registered sex offenders of U.S. registries! Now, a few times within the Report is mentioned, that, it is believed that 25% of sex tourism emanates from the United States. Assuming the truth of that statement, its is not coming from registrants of U.S. registries; is it possible these are new sex offenders, never before convicted of a sex crime? Not according to Congress.

In Part-1 of this "Expose" the Congressional Budget office estimated (estimated, again no evidence) that, some 10,000 RSO are likely to travel internationally annually. Congress also mentioned that, 4,500 passport were issued to registered sex offenders in 2008. Congress used those figures to imply that, RSOs travel for the purpose of criminal activity.

Well folks, how come they cannot come up with any documented cases of RSO convictions for sex tourism crimes? Congress was vague because the truth is RSOs are not involved in such crimes, they merely took vacations. Vacations, simply do not enter the minds of Congress when thinking about RSOs.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: There are links to everything above, and folks can read the Report, all 279 pages. Enjoy.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth about HR 5138

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.
•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.

No construction is necessary, that declaration of rights is clear.

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth ...

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.
•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.

No construction is necessary, that declaration of rights is clear.

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

REVISED: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (A International Travel)

UPDATED: 6-18-2010

I've received a few e-mails requesting that I provide a "Suggested Comment" like I have in other commentaries about the New Supplemental Guidelines. So, I have done that below, and folks can use the "Suggested Comment" they do address the main issues raised in the SG.

In the NEW Supplemental Guidelines, section titled "II. Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing" there are three sub-sections A-B-C. I will be commenting on each separately as I see troubles with each and do not want to confuse folks by placing everything in one post.

6-18-2010 Washington DC:

PROBLEM: In Section II-A of the "Proposed Supplemental Guidelines (SG)" the SMART Office has violated the U.S. Constitution. They cite a specific AWA section (42 USC 16928) -as authority to do what the SG explains-, but the cited authority does not permit them to do what the SG explains. Effectively, the SMART Office has exceeded its constitutional authority in interpreting the Adam Walsh Act. Explanation follows:

In the Federal Register (5-14-2010) is the FULL text of the NEW Proposed Supplemental Guidelines. I will be addressing TWO POINTS based on the following from the SG.

SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing--

A. International Travel states the following:

Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67. To that end, the Guidelines provide that sex offenders must be required to inform their residence jurisdictions if they intend to commence residence, employment, or school attendance outside of the United States, and that jurisdictions that are so informed must notify the U.S. Marshals Service and update the sex offender’s registration information in the national databases. See 73 FR at 38067. (Regarding the general requirement to provide registration information for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry and other appropriate databases at the national level, see 42 U.S.C. 16921(b)(1); 73 FR at 38060.) In addition, the Guidelines provide that sex offenders must be required to inform their residence jurisdictions about lodging at places away from their residences for seven days or more, regardless of whether that results from domestic or international travel. See 73 FR at 38056, 38066. ... (two more paragraphs not relevant to my Points)

POINT-1: Notice in the proposed Guideline above it says "who enter or leave the United States. See U.S.C. 16928." The problem is, 16928 DOES NOT SAY THAT, here is verbatim what it does say:

42 USC 16928 -- SEC. 128. REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES.

The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States who are required to register under this title. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide such information and carry out such functions as the Attorney General may direct in the operation of the system.

Whether or not it is logical to do what the SG says (highlighted above), is not the issue, the issue is, the cited authority does not permit controlling RSOs who decide to leave the United States, see 42 USC 16928.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
The Supplemental Guide states: "SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing-- A. International Travel: Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67."

42 USC 16928 states: "REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States ..."

42 USC 16928 does not permit preventing or controlling registered sex offenders who chose to LEAVE the United States.
Thank you.

POINT-2: Notice the other highlighted portion in the SG above: "In addition, the Guidelines provide that sex offenders must be required to inform their residence jurisdictions about lodging at places away from their residences for seven days or more, regardless of whether that results from domestic or international travel. See 73 FR at 38056, 38066."

Micro-Managing RSOs lives (and their family as well):

i)Notice how, under a guideline that supposedly addresses "International Travel" the SMART Office brings in "DOMESTIC" movement as to ALL RSOs. i.e., micro-managing lives, vacations, visiting family, professional conventions, medical reasons, job interviews, taking a son or daughter to a sporting event somewhere away from residence, and emergency circumstances, etc. If 42 U.S.C. 16928 is authority -as claimed by the SG- then it will not support "Domestic" movement (travel).

ii) While it may be permissible to control the lives of RSOs who are still under some form of supervision, as to those not under supervision, this "notification of residence jurisdiction" when folks are going to be say, on vacation for more than 7-days, is over-control in this writer's opinion. This is likened to placement of folks on parole or probation (or some new form of community supervision).

iii) A close review of 42 U.S.C. 16928 does not permit any construction which requires RSOs to act in any manner, nor anything that permits control of RSOs and their family. 16928 clearly says "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions." Authorities are to develop a system to inform relevant jurisdictions, which they have translated into, RSOs should inform relevant jurisdictions. RSOs are not employees of those agencies, and it is unlikely they will get paid for doing the job of the agency.

Accordingly, an appropriate comment might go like this:

OAG Docket No. 134

To Whom It May Concern:
Given that, 42 USC 16928 imposes a duty on the USAG (and other federal agencies) to inform relevant jurisdictions of persons -entering the United States- who are required to register, 42 USC 16928 -in no way- permits restrictions on DOMESTIC travel (movement within the United States) of ALL registrants in every state registry.

To construe 42 USC 16928 as the Supplemental Guideline does, is overreaching and extending it to do things, it simply, is not authorized to do.

Finally, it cannot be forgotten that many RSOs are part of a family unit, and short of eradicating these family units, these overreaching controls impermissibly affect the entire family unit.
Thank you.

---

WHERE TO POST COMMENTS:
OK, are your comments ready? Or, above are TWO suggested comments (background color is yellow), you can use those if you wish, but each must be a separate comment on Regulations.gov

So click here:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=OJP-2010-0001

Look on the lower left where it says "Comment Due 7-13-10 11:59 PM" just click on that and enter what you have prepared, or the above suggested comments, remember to copy each as a separate comment.

---

END OF POST

---

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

DC- New co-sponsor on HR-1623 International Megans Law

11-9-2009 National:

by eAdvocate

H.R. 1623: International Megan's Law of 2009

Cosponsorship change.

Rep. Berkley [D-NV1]: New cosponsor.

This bill has been reviewed, click for comments.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill in Congress HR 1623

3-20-2009 National:

Originally I provided an Advanced Notice of this bill which you can read here, with notes from when this bill was introduced in the last Congress (110th) where it died in committee. OK, now on to this year's version which is a massive bill and I will touch on the major points. I strongly advise any RSO who wishes to travel, where a PASSPORT is needed, to see a lawyer before traveling, you will see why below:

'International Megan's Law of 2009 (HR-1623)' -AND- 'International Megan's Law of 2010 (HR-5138)'.


Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
Introduced 3/19/2009 Bill HR 1623


Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
Introduced 4/26/2010 Bill HR 5138


The intent of the bills are: To protect children from sexual exploitation by mandating reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and other sex offenders against minors intending to engage in international travel, providing advance notice of intended travel by high risk sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, preventing entry into the United States by any foreign sex offender against a minor, and for other purposes.

In the 111th Congress:

(b) Declaration of Purposes- The purpose of this Act and the amendments made by this Act is to protect children from sexual exploitation by preventing or monitoring the international travel of sex traffickers and other sex offenders who pose a risk of committing a sexual offense against a minor while traveling by--

(1) establishing a system in the United States to identify sex offenders who pose a high risk of reoffending against children and who intend to travel outside the United States for the purpose of notifying the appropriate officials in destination countries of the criminal background and intent to travel by such individuals;

(2) strongly encouraging and assisting foreign governments to establish a sex offender travel notification system and to inform United States authorities when a sex offender intends to travel or has departed on travel to the United States;

(3) providing the Secretary of State with the discretion to temporarily rescind the passport or passport card of an individual who has been arrested for, is under investigation for, or has been charged with a sex offense against a minor, revoke the passport or passport card of an individual who has been sentenced overseas for a sex offense against a minor, or limit the period of validity of a passport or passport card issued to a high risk sex offender against a minor;

(4) preventing admission of foreign sex offenders against minors to the United States;

....

Obviously these lawmakers cannot conceive that any RSO would want to see another Country for the pure reason of enjoying its wonders whatever they may be. Also, a RSO may simply wish to return to their homeland to visit family, no none of these are possible in the eyes of these lawmakers who clearly are afflicted with offender-itis (see HERE for definition).

SEC. 3. Selected DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:

(2) HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER- The term `high risk sex offender' means a sex offender as defined under paragraph (5) who is determined pursuant to section 6 to pose a high risk of harm to children in a country to which he or she intends to travel.

(3) MINOR- The term `minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.

(4) PASSPORT CARD- The term `passport card' means a document issued by the Department of State pursuant to section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note).

(5) SEX OFFENDER- The term `sex offender' means an individual who is required by State law to register on a sex offender registry for having been convicted of a sex offense as defined in this Act.

(6) SEX OFFENSE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `sex offense' means a criminal offense, including a Federal offense, against a minor that involves any of the following:

See the bill it is virtually every type of offense

(ix) Any other conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `sex offense' shall not include:

(i) A foreign conviction if it was not obtained with sufficient safeguards for fundamental fairness and due process for the accused under guidelines or regulations established under section 112 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (title I of Public Law 109-248; 42 U.S.C. 16911).

(ii) An offense involving consensual sexual conduct if the victim was at least 13 years old and the offender was not more than 4 years older than the victim.

(7) RESIDES- The term `resides' means, with respect to an individual, the location of the individual's home or other place where the individual habitually lives.

(8) STATE- The term `State' includes any entity within the United States that by its law requires sex offenders to register in a sex offender registry.

SEC. 4. SEX OFFENDER TRAVEL REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Duty To Report-

(1) IN GENERAL- A sex offender shall notify an appropriate jurisdiction or jurisdictions of his or her intention to travel, in conformity with the rules issued under subsection (b), not later than 21 days before departure from or arrival in the United States. A jurisdiction so notified shall promptly inform the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `ICE SAC'), any successor to the functions of that official.

.........

(d) Duty To Notify Sex Offenders of Reporting and International Registration Requirement- When an official is required under State law to notify a sex offender (as defined in section (3)(5)) of a duty to register as a sex offender under the law of that State, the official shall also, at the same time--

(1) notify that offender of that offender's duties to report international travel under this section and to register under section 5, and the procedure for fulfilling those duties; and

(2) require the offender to read and sign a form stating that those duties to report and register, and the procedure for fulfilling them, have been explained and that the offender understands those duties and that procedure.

SEC. 5. FOREIGN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT FOR SEX OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, a United States diplomatic or consular mission in each foreign country shall establish and maintain a countrywide sex offender registry for sex offenders (as defined in section (3)(5)) from the United States who temporarily or permanently reside in such country. Such registry shall include the information specified in subsection (d).

(b) International Registry Requirement for Sex Offenders-

(1) IN GENERAL- A sex offender who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States--

(A) who resides in a foreign country for more than 21 consecutive days, or

(B) who resides in a foreign country for more than 30 days within a 6-month period,
shall register, and keep such registration current, at the United States diplomatic or consular mission in such country until such time as the sex offender departs such country or until such time has elapsed as the sex offender would have otherwise been required to register in the State of conviction for such sex offense, whichever is sooner.

(2) KEEPING THE REGISTRATION CURRENT- Subject to the duration requirement under paragraph (1), not later than five business days after each change of name, residence, or employment or student status, or any change in any of the other information specified in subsection (d)(1), a sex offender residing in a foreign country shall notify a United States diplomatic or consular mission in such country for the purpose of providing information relating to such change for inclusion in the sex offender registry maintained by such mission under subsection (a).

.........

SEC. 6. HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER ASSESSMENT.

(a) Sex Offender Risk Assessment Guidelines- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement shall issue directives to the ICE SAC for the assessment of sex offenders--

(1) who report international travel pursuant to section 4(a), or

(2) whose travel is reported pursuant to subsection (b),

for purposes of determining whether such sex offenders are high risk sex offenders.

.............

SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL SEX OFFENDER TRAVEL CENTER.

(a) Establishment- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall establish the International Sex Offender Travel Center (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Center') to carry out the activities specified in subsection (d).

........

(d) Activities- The Center shall carry out the following activities:

(1) Receive high risk sex offender determinations made by the ICE SAC pursuant to section 6.

(2) Transmit notice of impending or current international travel of high risk sex offenders to the country or countries of destination of such sex offenders as follows:

(A) The notice may be transmitted through such means as determined appropriate by the Center, including through an attache of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Interpol, or such other appropriate means as determined by the Center.

(B) If the Center determines that transmission of the notice could potentially pose a risk to the life or well-being of the high risk sex offender, the Center shall make every reasonable effort to issue a warning to the high risk sex offender of such risk prior to the transmission of such notice to the country or countries and may use its discretion not to transmit such notice.

(3) Provide a means of alerting Center personnel regarding those sex offenders who have not reported travel as required by section 4 by integrating available, relevant data on an ongoing basis into an existing centralized database that will identify sex offenders who are initiating travel, currently traveling, or have traveled outside the United States.

........

(e) Consultations- The Center shall engage in ongoing consultations with--
.....
(2) the governments of countries interested in cooperating in the creation of an international sex offender travel notification system or that are primary destination or source countries for international sex tourism; and

(3) Internet service providers regarding available and potential technology to facilitate the implementation of an international sex offender travel notification system, both in the United States and in other countries.

.....

There is so much in this bill that is questionable that I probably could have highlighted the majority of the bill, but settled for what seemed major points. I know my notice of this bill and highlighted portions will incite many folks, but this is what it is, and this is what counter arguments must be based on.

Most interesting is, the "risk assessment" because it does not follow what the Adam Walsh Act calls for, instead, it is a system yet defined but will be implemented by ICE SAC.

Where this bill would deny or revoke a RSO (U.S. Citizen) a passport, to leave or renter the U.S., the bill at least violates the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 "(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." and likely International Law (unfortunately I am not up on international law).

This bill further demonizes this group of U.S. Citizens (RSOs), and others from other countries, based on the acts of a very few offenders in high profile cases, and places anyone with the RSO in another country at grave risk for vigilantism which is known to be very high outside of the U.S.. Placing folks in danger is contrary to what America stands for. Further, under Sec 7(d)(2)(B) merely being notified by the "INTERNATIONAL SEX OFFENDER TRAVEL CENTER" (if they do notify) that the person by virtue of the notification to the other country, is potentially at risk of life and well being, is no consolation to the RSO or those who travel with him/her.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES of Congress mentions all sorts of sex crimes committed worldwide, but not one mention that any of them were by FORMER SEX OFFENDERS who were U.S. Citizens and were registered sex offenders (RSOs). Mentioning those crimes that way is a misuse of those circumstances and implying that ALL U.S. Citizen RSOs committed those crimes, places them in a false light before the public eye, further demonizing them, but that seems to be the way of U.S. lawmakers when they want to get laws passed.

The very presence of this bill, if made law, is COSTLY at a time when the entire world is in financial troubles, and totally unnecessary as any country may check the U.S. Internet Registry and obtain all that is necessary to make decision on whether or not to allow entry for that RSO. This bill will create jobs, yes, but but also many new levels of goverment entitled to future pensions that will only be paid for by the next generation.

I could write forever about this bill but it is time to end my rants and let folks see the latest disaster in Congress. Last year's version, without all this, died in committee, so should this devil.

Each RSO and their family and friends, should contact other RSOs and families, and together use that political power to contact everyone in Washington to assure that this bill dies in committee. Whether folks ever have the opportunity to leave this country for vacation or not, collectively everyone needs to support everyone else.

I would OPPOSE this bill 100%. Contact lawmaker, with your views, by clicking on his/her name above, as well as your own folks in Congress.

Thanks,
eAdvocate

Ted Koppel had this to say on Megans' law: "Good laws are almost never produced in the cauldron of public passion. The fact of the matter is that when we are angry, when our primary motive is punishment, we are impulsive and very rarely smart.

The Sicilians have a wonderful line which captures the essence of that: "Revenge," they say, "is a dessert best eaten cold." Passing a piece of legislation with a particular victim or, for that matter, criminal in mind is bound to prove less than satisfactory over the long haul.

Megan's Law may be trying to do too much. So much, in fact, that it's turning out to be unenforceable. That's neither fair to the convicted sex offender who's done his time and now has his sickness under control, nor is it providing any real protection to the most vulnerable among us. It needs to be fixed on both counts."

Ted Koppel, ABC Nightline, 2-5-04 Nightline: Address Unknown: Well-Intentioned Legislation Doesn't Always Produce Good Laws!

Note: To see all bills concerning sex offenders or their familes currently in Congress simply click here. At the present time I do not review sex offender bills concerning Immigration or Appropriations, they get very involved and are time consuming.

Note: Full bill text WILL NOT be included in this blog because as time goes on bills are amended by Congressional Committees and also on the floor of either house, and it is too easy to confuse folks who may not realize that. Further, links to the bill in Congress will be provided so folks can always see the latest version of the bill.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Advanced Notice of a NEW Bill in Congress (HR 1623)

3-20-2009 National:

'International Megan's Law'.

Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
Introduced 3/19/2009 Bill HR 1623 NOT YET AVAILABLE on Thomas website.

The intent of the bill is: To protect children from sexual exploitation by mandating reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and other sex offenders against minors intending to engage in international travel, providing advance notice of intended travel by high risk sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, preventing entry into the United States by any foreign sex offender against a minor, and for other purposes.

Rep. Smith is joined by the following co-sponsors:

Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9]; Rep Boozman, John [AR-3]; Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5]; Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1]; Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12]; Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16]; Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]; Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2]; Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18]; Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2]

Rep. Smith's Press Release of this 111th Congress bill is at the end of this post.


In the 110th Congress:
Just so folks know Rep. Smith introduced similar legislation in the last Congress. Then it was HR 5722 and the bill basically died in Committee. However, there is something I would like to mention about last year's bill which may be in this year's version as well, see the following:

(b) Declaration of Purposes- The purposes of this Act and the amendments made by this Act are to prevent the international travel of sex traffickers and other sex offenders who intend to commit a sexual offense by--

(1) expanding access to information about known sex offenders in the United States who intend to travel outside the United States;

(2) ensuring that foreign nationals who have committed a sex offense are denied entry into the United States;

(3) including information in the annual report to Congress required by section 110(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7107(b)(1)) regarding the establishment of systems to identify and provide notice of international travel by sex offenders to destination countries; and

(4) providing assistance to foreign countries under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to meet the requirements described in paragraph (3).

Given that this legislation would affect ANY RSO leaving the U.S., bar none, it just irks me that there is a presumption that the purpose of travel is to commit a sex crime. The inclusion of such a presumption, without any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the person leaving the U.S., is plain wrong and shows this is vindictive legislation.

Obviously these lawmakers cannot conceive that any RSO would want to see another Country for the pure reason of enjoying its wonders whatever they may be. Also, a RSO may simply wish to return to their homeland to visit family, no none of these are possible in the eyes of these lawmakers who clearly are afflicted with offender-itis.

OFFENDERITIS:
Offender-itis is a coined term used to describe a mental abnormality often occurring in public servants, politically aspiring persons, and others who can pass this psychological disorder on.

People so afflicted perceive that, others who may or may not have a previous criminal conviction are all highly dangerous to the general public. The disease is characterized by abnormal delusional visions of perceived horrific events creating an aura of public fear; these doomsayers get their rewards by painting a picture of "the sky is falling" and alienating the public.

Significant harm is caused by people so afflicted because the objects of their obsession are persons which society already looks down on (including their family members), and the collateral harm caused society is truly a tragedy.

Offenderitis is an incurable social disease because these people refuse to face reality, or facts and statistics which prove them wrong, they discount these facts and statistics because in their minds they only see horrific events in everyday life circumstances.

Those afflicted with Offenderitis, which is fear based, focus on denial of civil rights of other persons under the pretext of public safety.

A final point, in the Press Release below, Rep. Smith states:

“The International Megan’s Law includes strict penalties for non-compliance by sex offenders and the potential for a restriction on non-humanitarian aid against countries that fail to notify of travel by sex offenders residing within their borders”

When one country is providing "AID" to another country, how can "AID" ever be defined as non-humanitarian?

I will report on the full bill when I have seen it.
eAdvocate



=================================================
PRESS RELEASE
=================================================
Smith Introduces International Megan’s Law

Washington, Mar 19 - A bipartisan group of lawmakers have joined with Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) today in introducing legislation to protect children, worldwide, from sex offenders who seek to travel internationally to commit their heinous crimes.

“The International Megan’s Law builds upon the original state and federal Megan’s Law concept of notification and brings the program worldwide when a high risk sex offender decides to travel,” said Smith who represents Hamilton Township where seven year old Megan Kanka was brutally murdered 15 years ago by a convicted sex offender who moved into her neighborhood.

“My bill promotes a notification system for foreign officials to alert American authorities when sex offenders apply to enter the US from other countries, and the bill will also require US notification to other countries when people convicted of child sex crimes in the US look to travel abroad,” he said.

Smith, who is the author of the nation’s first anti-trafficking law, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (PL 106-386) and its two subsequent reauthorizations (PL 108-193 & 109-164) to combat the horrific practice of human trafficking in which the victims are primarily women and young girls, said US leadership in protecting vulnerable populations cannot be overstated.

“I know firsthand the positive impact the U.S. can have in persuading other countries to take action to protect vulnerable populations within their own borders,” he said. “Since the passage of my first Trafficking Victims Protection Act (PL 106-386), over 100 countries have implemented their own anti-trafficking laws and regulations to protect women and children within their own borders. The International Megan's Law is a continuation of the United States’ leadership in promoting and implementing global programs that make it more difficult for sex offenders to seek out and prey on new victims.”

Smith compared the sanctions in the new International Megan’s Law bill to provisions in his anti-trafficking laws.

“The International Megan’s Law includes strict penalties for non-compliance by sex offenders and the potential for a restriction on non-humanitarian aid against countries that fail to notify of travel by sex offenders residing within their borders” he said.

Smith said that there have been instances in which informal communications between international law enforcement officials have resulted in child sex offenders being prohibited from entering the United States when the traveler’s destination included a child in a vulnerable situation. Countries where child sex tourism is rampant also have refused entry to convicted sex offenders when the destination country received prior notification. He added that these efforts were commendable but said they underscore the need for a formal system to systematically protect more vulnerable children.

“We simply cannot leave notification of travel of child sex offenders to random spot checks or ad hoc reviews,” Smith said. “Instead, notification must be undertaken in a methodical, ongoing basis and must include information from all state registries.”

Specifically, Smith’s International Megan’s Law will:

• Establish a system that provides notice to foreign government officials when a known sex offender in the United States who poses a risk of reoffending against children intends to travel to their country

• Prohibit foreign nationals who have committed a sex offense from entering into the United States

• Strongly encourage and provide assistance to foreign governments that do not currently have a system to identify and track child sex offenders to do so

• Strongly encourage foreign governments to notify the US Government when a US citizen is arrested, convicted or imprisoned overseas for a sex offense against a minor in that country

• Include strict penalties for non-compliance of the travel reporting requirement by sex offenders

The bill is named for Megan Nicole Kanka. On July 29, 1994, seven year old Megan Kanka, a Hamilton, NJ resident, was kidnapped, raped, and brutally murdered. The assailant, Jesse Timmendequas, was a repeated sex offender living across the street, unbeknownst to residents living in the neighborhood. Public outcry about the tragedy and hard work by the Maureen and Richard Kanka, Megan’s parents, prompted the New Jersey State Legislature to pass the original Megan’s Law (NJSA 2C: 7-1 through 7-11) to require public notification of convicted sex offenders living in the community. Federal legislation followed and was signed into law on May 17, 1996 (PL 104-145) and strengthened in 2006 (PL 109-248).

Smith has worked closely with the Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation to continue to promote community notification laws and programs including a new program sponsored by the Foundation, Check ‘Em Out. Through the Check ‘Em Out program, the Foundation promotes and helps to fund backgrounds checks for municipal sports leagues’ volunteer coaches. ..Source.. by Rep. Smith

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...