The following is a cut and paste of ICE’s information page on IML and Passports:
Passports and International Megan’s Law
The passport identifier provision of International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (IML) (Public Law 114-119) went into effect on October 31, 2017.
The IML prohibits the Department of State from issuing a passport to a covered sex offender without a unique identifier, and it allows for the revocation of passports previously issued to these individuals that do not contain the identifier (22 USC 212b).
The identifier is a passport endorsement, currently printed inside the back cover of the passport book, which 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).” Since endorsements cannot be printed on passport cards, covered sex offenders cannot be issued passport cards.
Only the DHS/ICE Angel Watch Center (AWC) can certify an individual as a “covered sex offender.” Therefore, any questions by the applicant about such status must be directed to and resolved by AWC.
Applicants who have questions for AWC regarding their status or believe they have been wrongly identified as a covered sex offender as defined in Title 22 United States Code 212b(c)(1) should contact AWC at [email protected].
I applied for a passport in late June 2019. I got it after only 4 weeks. It does NOT have an IML identifier. I also got a passport card. I’m a registered sex offender in Michigan on tier 1 (lowest risk). My crime was non contact nonviolent I just had some nude pics of someone under 18 I was talking to online. I have 4 years left on the RSO list in Michigan. I’m going on a trip to Italy in October and wondering if I’ll have issues with my passport in that country or coming back to America. Should I have the identifier put in before I go? I have read the IML law and feel like I’m a “covered sex offender”. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
If “covered” sex offender means someone “convicted” of a sex offense against a minor, then my SIS in 1994 should not be. It is not a conviction in Missouri. I am on this list strictly because of Federal SORNA.
So I’ve been reading through the IML as it was written and this part really sticks out for me:
“(f) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘sex offender’’
means—
(1) a covered sex offender; or
(2) an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction or included in the National Sex Offender Registry, on the basis of an offense against a minor.”
Now to me – if I’m reading this correctly if we (or more to the point “I”) are not required to register, then we/I should not be required to have this passport change or notification much less travel notification/restrictions.
Am I missing something? Because then it seems the focus on getting the registry post-probation/prison absolved.
Of course the law will then just be amended to include anyone who isn’t even required to register – but that’s another battle to fight.
Okay, so only “Angel Watch” can determine if you are a “covered” sex offender? What criteria do they use? It certainly can’t be the reference cited [Title 22 United States Code 212b(c)(1)] because there is no definition of “covered”; it’s a circular reference!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/212b
22 U.S. Code § 212b(c) Defined terms In this section—
(1) the term “covered sex offender” means an individual who—
(A) is a sex offender, as defined in section 21503(f) of title 34; and
(B) is currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/21503#f
34 U.S. Code § 21503(f) Definition In this section, the term “sex offender” means—
(1) a covered sex offender; or
(2) an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction or included in the National Sex Offender Registry, on the basis of an offense against a minor.
Why is there no list of offenses that constitute “an offense against a minor”? It’s all double talk! I doubt if any of the idiots that voted for this even read it. They used the same caveman logic Floriduh uses, “sex offender bad, let’s punish!”
Public Law 114-119 IML
3) COVERED SEX OFFENDER.—Except as otherwise provided, the term ‘‘covered sex offender’’ means an individual who is a sex offender by reason of having been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
RtIML, okay. According to the document you site:
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ119/PLAW-114publ119.pdf
Public Law 114–119 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
(10) SEX OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘sex offense against a
minor’’ means a specified offense against a minor, as
defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911).
(B) OTHER OFFENSES.—The term ‘‘sex offense against
a minor’’ includes a sex offense described in section
111(5)(A) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911(5)(A)) that is a specified offense against a minor, as defined in paragraph (7)……
https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/resources/SORNA%20Full%20Text.pdf
42 U.S.C. § 16911
(5) Amie Zyla expansion of sex offense definition.
(A) Generally, … the term “sex offense” means‐‐
(i) a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another;
(ii) a criminal offense that is a specified offense against a minor;
(7) Expansion of definition of “specified offense against a minor” to include all offenses by child predators. The term “specified offense against a minor” means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.
So basically, if your conviction had the word child or minor in it, EVEN FOR THE TIER 1 OFFENSE OF SIMPLE POSSESSION, YOU ARE LABELED AS CHILD PREDATORS and covered sex offenders who must bear the “identifier” on your passport. The government doesn’t want us to live (or work) anywhere in America, but won’t let us leave either. This is like putting a lid on a pot of boiling frogs who are trying to jump out. Hell on earth.
And if you don’t have a conviction but still have to register….?
Here’s my take on this. Follow my logic.
Let’s start with the marker: ““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).”
Ok. So 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l) is the basis of who is gonna get the marker.
22 U.S. Code § 212b(c) Defined terms In this section—
(1) the term “covered sex offender” means an individual who—
(A) is a sex offender, as defined in section 21503(f) of title 34; and
(B) is currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction;
Clause A defines who gets it based on their crime.
Clause B defines who gets it based on if the currently are required to register.
There is a vital qualifier between the two clauses: “AND” We’ll come back to that.
Both A & B have to be true for a PP to get a marker.
Let’s go back to Clause A.
A is defined by section 21503(f) of title 34;
34 U.S. Code § 21503(f) Definition In this section, the term “sex offender” means—
(1) a covered sex offender; or
(2) an individual required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction or included in the National Sex Offender Registry, on the basis of an offense against a minor.
What’s a covered sex offender in Clause 1? Gotta go back to the IML.
Public Law 114–119 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS
3) COVERED SEX OFFENDER.—Except as otherwise provided, the term ‘‘covered sex offender’’ means an individual who is a sex offender by reason of having been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
(10) SEX OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘sex offense against a
minor’’ means a specified offense against a minor, as
defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911).
(B) OTHER OFFENSES.—The term ‘‘sex offense against
a minor’’ includes a sex offense described in section
111(5)(A) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16911(5)(A)) that is a specified offense against a minor, as defined in paragraph (7)……
Which then takes you to AWA. If you continue following to AWA you get the list. It’s long and covers basically everything you can think of with regards to a sex crime and a child (including possession of child porn).
Now go to clause 2 and the qualifier is OR between the two clauses.
Clause 2 of 34 U.S. Code § 21503(f)) is saying that a covered sex offender is someone who still has to register for a crime referenced in Clause 1. The emphasis still remains on the crime being related to a minor.
We’ve identified who is covered in clause A (the nature of the crime) of 22 U.S. Code § 212b(c).
Now we can go back to clause B of 22 U.S. Code § 212b(c).
“(B) is currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction;”
This basically means, from a plain reading, if you live in Florida (for example) and you, right now, have to register in Florida, then clause B applies to you. Florida has a lifetime registration (totally awful).
This shouldn’t be read as: someone currently living in California, which now has tiered registration, would be required to register if he moves to Florida, thus Clause B applies to him. That’s not how this should work, and if it does work that way, then it ought to be easy to fight that application. Registration requires the physical presence of the person in the jurisdiction, albeit even in a minimal way (maintaining a residence, even if you don’t live there most of the time). That phrase “any jurisdiction” can lead to that conclusion, but the purpose of that phrase is a catch all; for all states and territories where a registry exists (which is all of em).
So, from a plain reading, if you’re identified in A, but are not currently required to register under the sex offender registration program of any jurisdiction, a marker should not be placed.
I hope you were able to follow that.
Side note and question: One thing to think about. Because some states have lifetime registration, what happens if a person is not required to register in their current state anymore, but moves to (or triggers registration another way) say Florida? Do they have to register in Florida? If that’s the case, then, if they’re identified in clause A, they’d also be newly identified by clause B which would make them eligible for the marker. That’d just be a gut punch (not like the rest of this BS isn’t).
If I understand the facts, a lot of other countries (Mexico comes to mind) don’t have a SO Registry, so the US government has no problem letting in foreigners without knowing if they are sex offenders. But the USA feels it necessary to “protect” the REST OF THE WORLD from the dastardly American Sex Offender.
I also remember the Cuban boat exodus when Cuba opened its prisons to let anyone (the worst) out as long as they went to the USA.
Let me know if I’ve got this right.
You are incorrect.
C R, Mexico has no sex offender registry:
https://smart.gov/pdfs/GlobalOverview.pdf
The Mariel boatlift was thought to have allowed the worst of the worst to come to Florida. While this is partially true, they represented only a small percentage of the otherwise blue-collar Cubans and political prisoners of Fidel Castro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Can anyone tell me WHERE the idea of the IML came from? Who was the initial legislator who proposed this abomination? Was there ANY dissention from ANY other law makers? Or did they all fall in lock-step?
Wikipedia is a good source for information on what you are looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Megan%27s_Law_to_Prevent_Child_Exploitation_and_Other_Sexual_Crimes_Through_Advanced_Notification_of_Traveling_Sex_Offenders