Why is it in America's interest to allow a criminal on US soil?

Whilst I can understand why Thaksin would wish to go to America both at the political and non-political level, I find it difficult to understand why the US authorities should want him there, if, as Ambassador Kenney is at pains to point out, the granting of a visa was not political, particularly as he goes politicking round the US and is being harried at every turn by anti-Thaksin supporters. Their embarrassment however, must now be growing.

Ambassador Kenney’s contention that the granting of a visa was non-political looks rather shaky if we examine the few facts that need to be addressed to establish the true state of affairs.  Firstly, Thaksin was legally tried in a recognised court in a democratic country that enjoys bilateral ties with America. Secondly, that legal system is not the subject of criticism by the US or any other country or any interested national or international NGOs.  Thirdly, he was properly found guilty by that process and sentenced to 2 years in jail.  Fourthly, he fled Thailand to avoid his sentence and is in essence a fugitive from justice from a state on friendly terms with the US and an extradition treaty in place.  That sentence is still extant. 

What has changed is that there is now a government in power led by Thaksin’s sister.  So it does not need the fleetness of mind of Wernher Von Braun to reach the conclusion that the volte-face that has been so deftly performed by Japan, Germany, Britain and now America has everything to do with politics.  So the ambassador’s plea would seem to fall at this the first hurdle.

This is nothing however in comparison to the second more substantial hurdle which involves American law.  Under Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act a person is ineligible to enter the US if they have been convicted of a statutory offence which involves moral turpitude.  Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. In Thaksin’s case, as his offence is both against property and against governmental authority (for example fraud against government functions) he amply satisfies this test of moral turpitude.  Thus being ineligible under American law to enter the country a political decision must have been taken to override the law as the gift of a waiver under Section 212 (d) is that of the Attorney General, the chief lawyer of the US government and a member of the president’s cabinet. So a political decision must have been taken.

Insofar as it is somewhat embarrassing for the US authorities to have demonstrations against Thaksin on its own territory, thus reminding the authorities of this man’s criminal status, the demonstrators might better spend their time having the matter of his eligibility to be in the US brought up in Congress by their representatives, and specifically ask why his ineligibility to enter the US was waived, as it says in Section 212 (d) such waivers can only be given “if the Attorney General considers it to be in the national interest to do so”. So I can only wonder why it is in America’s national interest to have this fugitive criminal on its soil at this time.

Dr Daniel W Delaware