The Daily Signal - Did Prince Harry Receive 'Preferential Treatment' on US Visa Application? Lawsuit Aims to Find Out

Episode Date: September 8, 2023

Britain's Prince Harry may have received “preferential treatment” when granted his U.S. visa, according to Nile Gardiner of The Heritage Foundation.  Harry, the Duke of Sussex, publicly admitted to drug use in his recent memoir “Spare,” but it's not known whether the royal disclosed his drug use on his visa application, an admission that can slow the application process or result in its rejection.  The Heritage Foundation Oversight Project filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security asking for a copy of Harry’s application. The request was denied, so Heritage filed a lawsuit, arguing that it is in the public's interest to know whether Harry lied or not on his visa application. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) “Everyone should be treated equally before the law,” says Gardiner, who formerly served as a foreign policy researcher for then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and currently serves as the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.  “U.S. immigration law should be applied forcefully and fairly, without any kind of favor given to individuals applying,” Gardiner said.  If the royal “lied on his application, that is a very serious offense," he said. "That would be perjury.” Gardiner joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain the significance of the legal fight and the possible reasons why DHS has been unwilling to release Harry’s visa application.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whilst Prince Harry, because of his celebrity status, was he given some kind of preferential treatment? It's our view that everyone should be treated equally before the law. US immigration law should be applied forcefully and fairly without any kind of favor given to individuals applying. This is the daylessional podcast for Friday, September 8th. I'm Virginia Allen, and that was Nile Gardner, the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom here at the Heritage Foundation. Nile formerly served as the foreign policy researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. And according to Gardner, Prince Harry may have received special treatment when granted his visa to come to the United States. Today on the Daily Signal podcast,

we are diving into that discussion and that question with Nile Gardner of did Prince Harry receive special treatment on his visa application. The question stems from conversations around Prince Harry's drug usage, something he admits to in his recent book, Spare. Visa applicants are asked about their drug usage on their application, and so there's questions about whether Prince Harry disclosed that information and was still granted a visa, or whether he did not disclose that information on his visa application. Well, Heritage has actually filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in order to receive access to Prince Harry's visa application to find out whether the Royal disclosed his prior drug usage or not. Stay tuned for my conversation with Nile after this.

Looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues from America's outpost here in Washington, sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. You'll get top conservative research, a rundown of important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online and hot takes from our experts. Sign up at heritage.org slash agenda or at the link in the show notes. It is my privilege today to be joined by Nile Gardner. Nile is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation and formerly served as the foreign policy researcher for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Niall, thanks for being with us today. great to be here, Virginia. Thanks very much, having on the show. Well, we are diving into a topic

that is of interest to individuals both in America and in the UK, and that is Prince Harry. Now, Prince Harry, he lives in America now, specifically in California, and he acquired a visa in order to move to America with his wife, Megan Markle. But now, the Heritage Foundation is questioning whether Prince Harry received special treatment in order to receive that visa. from the Department of Homeland Security. And Heritage has actually filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to learn

whether the Royal did receive any special treatment. So, Nile, why does Heritage suspect that Prince Harry might have received special treatment in his visa application process? Yeah, those are great questions. And so the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project, which is headed by Mike Howell, has taken the Department of Homeland Security

to federal court. in order to secure the release of Prince Harris' immigration application. So it's become a big court case, actually, a very high-profile case. It's attracted immense interest on both sides of the Atlantic. And the reason why Heritage has taken DHS to court is because we believe that there is a strong chance that Prince Harry received preferential treatment with regard to his visa application. Now, Prince Harry admitted to a very extensive and widespread drug use in his memoir spare, which was released earlier this year back in January. It was a best-selling book, and Harry was very frank about his very widespread use of a whole range of illegal drugs.

And we are asking for accountability and transparency from the Biden administration, specifically from the Department of Homeland Security, with regard to Prince Harris' application. We want to know whether or not Harry lied on his application and whether he was given some kind of special waiver by U.S. authorities. Now, in many cases, applicants for a U.S. visa who admit to drug use are denied entry to the United States. In fact, there are a large number of cases like this. And therefore, whilst Prince Harry, because of his celebrity status, because of perhaps connections he may have in the United States, we'll see given some kind of preferential treatment. It's our view that everyone should be treated equally before the law. US immigration law should be applied forcefully and fairly without any kind of favor given to individuals applying.

So we believe there is a very strong public interest in terms of the release of Harry's records. And if Harry lied on his application, that is a very serious offense. That would be perjury. It would be a federal offense. And normally in those situations, individuals who have lied on immigration applications would be asked to leave the country. And so the stakes are very high, certainly for Prince Harry. We do not know exactly what he put down on his immigration application. And that's why we're asking for transparency, accountability from U.S. officials with regard to his application.

and we believe there is a very strong public interest in the release of those records. You have previously said that there's three possibilities for that visa process and how it played out. You've answered one that, you know, when asked on his application, have you used drugs before? There's a possibility that Prince Harry lied. You've mentioned, though, there's two other possibilities for kind of the handling of that visa application. Could you explain those? Yeah, so if Harry was honest and forthright in terms of his application, then there should have been full scrutiny of that application. And so if anyone who ticks a box saying they have used drugs, those individuals are subject to further interview, further questioning by U.S. authorities.

So we want to establish whether that was the case. So certainly one possibility is that Harry may have lied on his application and not revealed the full extent of his drug use. A second possibility is that he was fully honest with regard to his drug use. And there is the possibility that his application did not receive the full scrutiny it should have received. I think there's a third possibility

whereby he fully disclosed was on his application. There was some kind of scrutiny with regard to his application, but the US authorities decided to just give him a pass. And so there are a number of different scenarios that could have taken place here.

So we want to establish the facts with regard to his application. And it's absolutely unacceptable if Harry, if his application did not receive the scrutiny that it should have. It's also unacceptable if he was given some kind of preferential waiver when thousands of others have had their visas denied. It's also unacceptable if he lied on his application. And if he did lie on his application, that is a perjury offense. And that should result in deportation. Now, the Heritage Foundation Oversight Project filed a Freedom of

Information Act request or a FOIA in order to gain those records of the this application and the Department of Homeland Security denied that request. Why did they say they denied it? Yeah. So DHS categorically have refused to release Harry's immigration application, even though many individuals have had their immigration applications released publicly if there is deemed to be a public interest. And so there have been hundreds of cases where immigration records have been a release in the

past. Now, DHS is arguing that they cannot release the records on the grounds of protecting Prince Harris' privacy. They say he's a private individual. They argue that his immigration record should not be released to the general public in order to protect the privacy of somebody who has applied for a US visa. Now, in our view, Prince Harry is a huge public figure. He has spoken extensively about his drug use, not only in his own memoir, but also in a series of television interviews as well. Prince Harry is one of the most public figures in the world today. He is a household name in the United States and across much of the world. And so to argue on the grounds of privacy that his record should not be released, I think is a ludicrous argument because he has been so open.

about his own drug use. And therefore, we are arguing that there is a public interest in knowing exactly what he put on his immigration application. And so this argument about defending Prince Harris' privacy is a ridiculous argument. It's an example of stonewalling. It's the refusal on the part of the Biden administration act in an open and transparent manner. They're basically just parroting the talking points which Prince Harry and Megan Markle have used in the past about protecting their privacy. when at the end of the day, they are two of the most public figures in the world who have been extremely open about their own lives. Prince Harry has been remarkably open about his drug use, illegal drug use, and therefore we believe that his records immigration application

should be open to public scrutiny. The American people should be able to see exactly what Prince Harry put down on his immigration records. Well, and to that end, the Heritage Foundation has filed a lawsuit in order to gain access to that information. Where does that lawsuit stand right now? Yeah. So there was a federal court hearing in June, which was the first hearing to discuss Prince Harry's immigration records case.

That hearing was very detailed. It lasted about an hour and a half. Lawyers from the Heritage Foundation delivered evidence and lawyers on behalf of the by administration delivered evidence as well. There will be a second hearing held most likely in the fall. We do not have an exact date yet. There could be a whole series of hearings held, but this has become a big issue of public interest and there will be at least one further federal hearing. The judge presiding over the case made it clear that he will ultimately issue a ruling on the release of Prince Harry's

records as to whether or not they should be released. So there will be a resolution to this issue. And we are certainly fighting to win this case. And we believe that we have public opinion and the public interest on our side. A Newsweek poll came out recently. We showed that 54% of Americans support the release of Prince Harry's immigration records. This case has attracted a great deal of public attention. It has also resulted in a very significant media interest in the United States and the United Kingdom and across the world, actually. In fact, it's become a big public story. So there's an intense public scrutiny of what is happening.

And ultimately, this issue will be resolved in the federal court in Washington, D.C. And so the Biden administration can seek to stonewall all they like, but at the end of the day, this issue will be decided by a federal judge in a federal court here in Washington, D.C. Well, and Capitol Hill has gotten a little bit involved in this matter as well. Florida Representative Greg Stuby has introduced an act called the Spare Act, which stands for substance and possession abuse restrictions for entrance. But of course, the name is also a nod to Prince Harry's book that you mentioned spare. But what is the Spare Act, if you would just explain that for a moment? Well, the Spare Act, in essence, basically calls for the strict enforcement of U.S. immigration law.

It basically declares that anyone found to have violated immigration law in terms of misleading statements, for example, over drugs, they should be dealt with under the full force of the law. And so the legislation basically, in essence, calls for the enforcement of existing immigration law. And in my view, I think this is just the beginning of what is likely to be growing congressional interest in the Prince Harry immigration issue. And with good reason, the act is named the spare act. recognizing Prince Harry's admission of extensive drug use. And Congressman Stuby here is simply calling for the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, holding to account those individuals who may have lied on their immigration applications. This is a very serious matter.

And I'm in no doubt that we will see growing and intense congressional interest in the Prince Harry issue. In fact, there are already, I think, a number of U.S. senators who are interested in this case. It's become a big media story. And I think that we will see the floodgates opening in terms of congressional interest in what is happening. And members of Congress really calling for accountability and transparency from the Biden. administration. Nail, you still travel to the UK frequently.

What is the public's opinion in the United Kingdom of Prince Harry and are they following this situation? Yes. There is a lot of public interest in the UK in the Prince Harry immigration case. In fact, I was in London just a few weeks ago and I spoke to several members of parliament who were closely following developments. And I would say that the Prince Harry immigration case has attracted not only intense public interests, media interests in the UK, but also political interests as well.

And it's a well-known case among members of parliament in the UK. And every single MP that I spoke to, and I spoke to dozens, were fully aware of this case and we're closely following it and were eagerly awaiting news about further developments. And so it's attracted a lot of public interest in the UK. It will attract more and more interests as the court case unfolds. And although I did hear some concerns expressed by people in the UK that the last thing they wanted was Prince Harry sent back to Britain. And so there are people nervous in the UK of a return by Prince Harry. But I would say this.

If Prince Harry had to leave the United States, most likely you'd go to Canada or somewhere else, rather than the United Kingdom where he's very unpopular. Harry and Megan are deeply unpopular figures in Great Britain. They would not be welcomed over there. And so if Harry did have to leave the United States, I think its most likely destination would be Canada or France or somewhere like that. Fascinating. Now Prince Harry has also faced some legal trouble in the UK itself, correct, involving payment

over police protection, is that right? Yes. Harry has been involved in all kinds of cases in the UK, mainly where he's been suing newspapers in Britain over various stories. And Prince Harry famously, of course, was denied the continuation of his official police protection. The reason for that is because Prince Harry is no longer a working royal. He does not represent the royal family. He does not work on behalf of the royal family on behalf of the British people. And therefore, he should not expect to have the British taxpayer pay for the protection of himself and his family when he visits the UK.

And so some of the legal action has revolved around the issue of police protection in Britain. But most of his legal action has revolved around Prince Harry suing British newspapers. For what I assume are some negative stories. Yes. Or what he takes as negative stories. I would say the overwhelming press coverage of Prince Harry and Megan Markle is very negative in Britain. And Prince Harry, of course, has stepped away from the raw family. He is not a working royal and therefore should not expect the protection, the taxpayer-funded protection that working royals get.

In fact, I would say that Prince Harry and Megan Markle have done all they can to undermine the Royal Family in the course of the last two or three years or so. Their relentless attacks upon the Royal Family have been very unpopular with the British public. And they have become two of the most unpopular figures, I would say, of recent times in the United Kingdom as a result of their relentless attacks on the British family, on the institution of the British monarchy. are also seen increasingly as politically active figures in the United States involved with political causes. And they have been identified very much in the UK as part of the sort of the woke left-wing political agenda.

And a lot of Brits dislike it when royals get involved in politics, really. They like the separation. Yes, exactly. Even if they're non-working royals, the view in Britain is that members of the Royal family should not engage in any way in what has seen to be politically related causes. Fascinating. Well, Nile Gardner, thank you so much for your time. We're going to be following this case as it moves through the courts with the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you so much for your time. It's my pleasure. Many thanks, Virginia.

And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode of the Daily Signal podcast. You can find all of Nile's reporting and research at heritage.org. You can also find Niles Pieces at DailySignal.com. If you haven't had a chance, make sure that you check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed, where we bring you the top news of the day. Also take a moment to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast wherever you like to listen and help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. Have a wonderful weekend. We'll see you right back here on Monday morning. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage.

Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Kate Shrinco. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geiney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.