Transcript of the above video: 

Well this is one of the few times where Thai political news actually intersects with the most boring body of law I can think of, US Immigration Law, and it kind of topically allows for discourse on both topics and allows for comparison in I think, a rather useful way. 

So I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, that is bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Court ruling makes filling cabinet "hard". Quoting directly: "The appointment of Cabinet Ministers will require more careful consideration, especially in light of the Constitutional Court’s decision to reject a petition to clarify one of the requirements that a candidate must meet, said Prime Minister's Office Minister Chousak Sirinil. According to Mr. Chousak, who submitted the petition, the Constitutional Courts refusal to clarify what is meant by "clear honesty", which is listed as one of one of the requirements for nominating a candidate for a Ministerial Post, will make it "extremely difficult" to fill the Cabinet. Man I feel like quoting John McClain from Die Hard, "welcome to the party pal." 

Do you think you think any Court is ever going to give away the secret sauce on exactly how they are ever going to interpret terminology? No, that's the nature of it. Yeah again, "extremely difficult"! Welcome to the party pal! I'm not trying to be snarky there but yeah, I think that's just a battle you are never going to win because the Courts want to retain the ability to interpret later, depending on different circumstances. That said, quoting further: "Mr. Chousak said the requirement is vague and as such is open to interpretation.." Yeah, that's the Court's function. Quoting further: "--providing a basis for disqualifying high-profile political post holders, the most recent of which was former Premier Srettha Thavisin. For example, parking in the wrong spot could be regarded as an act of dishonesty which could then render someone ineligible to become a Cabinet Minister, he said." 

Funny he should say that. I actually had a case involving US Immigration. It involved a Thai individual who actually was found inadmissible to the United States for forging a fake parking pass to use a parking terminal, and I'm not kidding okay. This person apparently did it enough that the people that owned the parking place called the police. A police report was made; this person paid like the equivalent of like a ticket in Thailand, but now they have it on their record and as we have discussed in many other videos, especially as it pertains to what are called Waivers of Inadmissibility, so if you're found inadmissible to the United States and "crimes involving moral turpitude" are considered grounds of inadmissibility to the United States, you could be found to not be able to get a visa. And then you have to go get a waiver of that finding of a crime involving moral turpitude, which by the way, you don't even necessarily have to be convicted of in order to have the finding of inadmissibility - a mere admission is enough - but if you're found inadmissible under CIMT as we call it, if you're found inadmissible, you have got to go get a waiver.

What is this moral turpitude? Well it's one of these things that has to be sort of interpreted over time depending on circumstances. Again, I saw a finding of this literally for somebody who forged a parking pass, and it's not necessarily over parking in a wrong parking spot, there was more overt act ,but I've seen this before and it can be for seemingly innocuous actions, but they can have definite long-term implications especially in a US Immigration context. 

So the thing to take away from this video is yeah, much akin to this “clear honesty” thing, the whole notion of moral turpitude is an ambiguous thing which can be left up to interpreters who are going to adjudicate cases involving US Immigration from the Kingdom of Thailand.