Does anyone have any idea why Sir Mark Thatcher, son of former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, is being kept out of the United States—and away from his U.S. citizen wife and children in Dallas, Texas—while millions of illegal aliens and previously-deported criminals are free to roam America from sea to shining sea?
BBC News has followed the story of Mark Thatcher step-by-step, including speculation on whether he could get a U.S. Visa, and the news of being refused a visa most likely because of his South African conviction for tangential involvement in a failed coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. (He funded a helicopter). According to the BBC, the leader of the plot, former British SAS officer Simon Mann [VDARE.com note: No relation to Juan!], was found guilty of buying weapons illegally in Zimbabwe for the coup.
So why is Thatcher's refusal such a big deal . . . he's a convicted criminal, right?
Well, to put this in perspective, U.S. visa policy is in a state of absolute chaos.
Untold thousands of foreign nationals overstay their non-immigrant visas and remain in the U.S. long enough to jump their status to some other, legal, flavor. Either they find "immigration love" for an immigrant visa, file a ridiculous claim for political asylum, or just wait it out for the smorgasbord of adjustment of status goodies available in the process that only uninformed fear—deportation proceedings.
Many of these foreign nationals have already been convicted of crimes while actually in the United States.
The BBC did not say, and I don't know, what type of legal status Sir Mark previously held in the United States. But, according to the BBC reports, it evidently lapsed at some point. So he was then obligated to file for a renewal of some sort of visa. But the U.S. State Department denied his request.
Since I don't know what status Sir Mark was seeking, I have no idea why he was refused. Aliens convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude" [CIMTs] are inadmissible to the United States according to section 212(a)(2)(A)(I) of the Immigration Act.
But I really doubt whether Sir Mark's crime falls under this often-elusive CIMT definition. It's very loose. If you ask any one of the Treason Lobby's handmaidens in the legal profession, no illegal alien or criminal alien resident has ever been convicted of a CIMT.
But even if Sir Mark was found to have committed a CIMT, I can't imagine why he wouldn't be eligible to apply for a waiver under Immigration Act section 212(h) for this ground of inadmissibility.
Furthermore, Sir Mark has every right to seek lawful permanent resident status in the U.S., by way of an immigrant petition through his U.S. citizen spouse . . . and get a green card just like millions of foreign nationals have before him. Even if he had committed a CIMT, he could be granted a waiver.
So who really knows why Sir Mark won't be going back to Texas? If even alien criminals who are already illegally in the United States are allowed to adjust status, why not Sir Mark?
Does anyone think Sir Mark would try the same thing here in the United States?...that is, funding a helicopter for the purpose of overthrowing our government?
You've gotta be kidding!
It's quite possible some zealous State Department official just had a heavy hand. The odd thing is that the Bush Administration didn't intervene. The Executive Branch certainly has the ability to apply unseen pressure in visa matters as a matter of routine.
Moral: immigration law is enforced against those who obey the law—just like our gun laws.
That enforcement can be tyrannical—but the anarchy is unabated.
Sir Mark is one unfortunate victim—but the ultimate victim is America.