This is happening more and more; U.S. government officials are attacking registered citizens who live overseas or who are going on vacations overseas. They are doing this by notifying the other countries to the fact that registrants are in or traveling to their country and that our government is implying, that because a person is a registered citizen, that they are coming into or are living in the other country for the expressed purpose of committing additional criminal acts. So the question arises, do they notify other countries every time any person with a criminal conviction travels there or is this policy just aimed at register citizen’s?
A person’s reputation is a liberty interest. The United States Supreme Court has previously recognized that a person’s reputation is a protected liberty interest under the federal due process clause. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (hereafter “Constantineau”); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (hereafter “Roth”).
In Constantineau, the State of Wisconsin authorized the posting of a notice prohibiting the sale or gift of liquor to any person who “‘by excessive drinking’ produces described conditions or exhibits specified traits, such as exposing himself or family ‘to want’ or becoming ‘dangerous to the peace’ of the community.” On appeal, the Constantineau Court recognized that “[i]t would be naive not to recognize that such ‘posting’ or characterization of an individual will expose him to public embarrassment and ridicule.” 400 U.S. at 436. The Court therefore held that a protectible liberty interest is implicated “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him [or her.]” Id. at 437. as well as the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Hawaii vs. Bani . The acts of these government officials opened them and the agencies that they operate out of to million Dollar lawsuits under U.S.C. 1983 actions , as well as the possibility of them facing federal charges under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights and Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
A registered citizen living in California recently returned from living overseas after ICE informed his adopted country of his conviction, which was simple possession of CP which had happened almost 15 years ago. He served his time was released into the community and registered. After legally notifying his registration board, he moved out of the U.S.
Years later, while living in his new adopted country, he was arrested, jailed for over a week and deported back to the states for entering that country illegally. It was a strange situation because he had been living in the other country for most of the last 13 years, more or less since he got off probation, so he knew a lot of people there. Two of the embassy wardens were good friends of his. If there was something going on from the Embassy side he would probably know it. He believes it was solely ICE that was behind his arrest and deportation.
He had set up a very happy life away from all this trouble only to have his entire life ripped away, yet again. He lost everything, including a fiance whom he hasn’t yet had the heart to fully explain that they will probably never see each other again, due to the Adam Walsh Act’s provisions prohibiting registered citizen’s from supporting a foreign nationals visa to the USA. It’s a shame because she knows about his offense and is still 100% committed to him. He is actively seeking information about this (supporting a fiance visa) if anyone has any experience. This has put him over $10k in debt. So it’s back to square one for his life.