- This topic has 6 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by Jerry.
April 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm #10125
IML Update Full Story on CARSOL The federal government filed a Motion to Dismiss the IML lawsuit this week. The government’s motion is based upon alle
[See the full post at: IML Update; Federal Government files motion to dismiss]
April 24, 2016 at 2:17 am #10126
The affixation of annotating a unique identifier on a passport will not merely just deface the document, but surely cause harm to the expat or traveler at hand. Social security numbers at one given time indicated a persons race, but were eliminated when discrimination laws and affirmative action remedies became necessary. It was intended to prevent cyclic discriminative practices such as employment, housing and educational stereotyping. Their are former offenders that posses merchant marine passport-like credentials, whom have all passed stringent standards by homeland security to obtain such documents by passing a standardize background check. This would invoke absurdity if a unique indentifier was affixed to such a document as well. These individuals travel worldwide on government contracted and commercially owned freight ships. The government devised its own policies on what constitutes rehabilitation and the propensity of further criminal risk of all applicants. The process is sound and reasonable and such procedures should be emulated and caculated in other areas involving criminal risk assessments. The governance of such policies as the IML, contradict the core and meaning of human rights initiatives versus the war of human trafficking. Both plights deserve equal attention but should not borrow from the pool of ex convicts whom have paid their debt to society. The IML is clearly a politically infused agenda, modeled after unproven edicts and bias data. This tool is on the deep end practical politics of what is probable and possible indicator of future criminality. No offender who has not been convicted of such designated crimes, should be categorized as a potential violator of small lists of offenses that occur abroad. The overreach of this policy is audacious and infringing on individual rights at best. The mere act and gist of an offender being required to submit 21-day advance notice of travel plans acts as a form of detention and restriction of free movement to one heart content. For such policies to rely on imperative implementation it seems to dually hide under the cloak of supposed “administrative” procedure rather than punitive gesturing, which if not adhered to turns into punitive regardless of its civil administrative intent. Trickery and word-play at its finest
April 24, 2016 at 1:23 pm #10127
Wouldn’t expect anything less than from our honest to a fault federal government. I never believed in conspiracy theories before experiencing the registry. Even the movie JFK didn’t have me convinced. Thought Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison were nut jobs. But by seeing how these people can consistently get away with such lies and all for the sake of retaining power and money, it’s made me rethink a few things along the way.
April 25, 2016 at 3:23 pm #10128
I was watching the movie “Inherit the Wind” last night and said to myself this could all be compared to the monkey trail back in the 20’s but updated to this day and age. So what is a definition of sex? I wonder who is doing the abusing or should one abuse a fictitious person. Talk about the law scamming the public.
April 25, 2016 at 6:19 pm #10129
April 29, 2016 at 11:11 pm #10130
Alexander C. Miles
Next comes registration at the U.S. Consulate or Embassy of all U.S. citizen RSOs who spend more than 72 hours in any foreign country, and an amendment to the renunciation statute providing that any U.S. citizen RSO will not be allowed to relinquish U.S. citizenship while on the registry.
This is only a few years away.
Naturally, with the enthusiastic support of U.S. constituents.
May 4, 2016 at 4:41 pm #10131
… and we thought George Orwell’s 1984 was fiction!
Thus, because someone who was unfortunate to live in a state where downloading mere semi-nude or non-graphic depictions of persons under the age of 18 are the same thing as downloading real child pornography, this person has to have the Scarlet Letter on their passport? Where is the empirical evidence that such a person is a threat to a child or anyone else for that matter? It is not the individual? It is one size fits all … really???!!!
Punishing someone for something they might do with the marked passport is ignorant. This save’s children and the public from sex offenses? Where … as the old Wendy’s commercial said, “Where’s the beef?”
It is time for the American public to wake up and be like Missourians … SHOW ME!!!