Royal Reprieve: US Ambassador Confirms Prince Harry's Exemption from Deportation under Biden Administration

Pressure on the US government to disclose the Duke of Sussex's visa records has intensified following remarks made by the American ambassador to London, Jane Hartley, affirming that Prince Harry would not face deportation during President Joe Biden's tenure. The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington DC, embroiled in a legal battle to unveil the file, has cited Hartley's comments in their pursuit. Advocating for transparency under America's Freedom of Information laws, the foundation has pressed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to unveil Prince Harry's dossier. His acknowledgment of cocaine use in his book "Spare" raised concerns about his US residency, where drug admission can hinder visa applications. When questioned about the potential of deportation during an interview on Sky News on March 25, Hartley unequivocally stated, "Well it’s not going to happen in the Biden administration." The Heritage Foundation deemed her remarks "extraordinary," emphasizing that they significantly augment the public interest in disclosure. Despite the DHS's stance that releasing any information would reveal Prince Harry's immigration status, the foundation argued that Hartley's public disclosure contradicted the administration's rationale for withholding information. By addressing the issue in her official capacity, Hartley underscored the importance of her statement, asserting its relevance to ongoing litigation. Despite these developments, the Biden administration has thus far refused to release the Duke's application details.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserts, "Courts consistently hold that a person’s visa or immigration status is private, personal information exempt from disclosure." Judge Carl Nichols, overseeing the case in Washington DC, has yet to issue a ruling. Prince Harry's residency status in the US has come under scrutiny following revelations in his memoir "Spare," published after his relocation to America in 2020, where he admitted to past drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, and psychedelic mushrooms. In the United States, individuals deemed "drug abusers" risk being classified as "inadmissible." Notable figures like Nigella Lawson have faced US entry bans after admitting to drug use. While prior drug use doesn't automatically bar immigrants from the US, they must truthfully disclose it on their visa applications. Failure to do so, or providing false information, can result in deportation. Prince Harry's residency has become politically charged, with Donald Trump not ruling out deportation if he were to assume the presidency again. Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, remarked that the US Ambassador's comments bolster their argument for public disclosure of Prince Harry's immigration records. Gardiner emphasized, "The US Ambassador to London speaks directly on behalf of the president of the United States. It is extraordinary that she has chosen to comment on an ongoing federal court case." He questioned the Biden administration's reluctance to release the records, urging immediate disclosure to the American people. The Telegraph has reached out to the White House for comment.

In conclusion, the ongoing saga surrounding Prince Harry's US residency highlights the intersection of privacy rights, immigration law, and political intrigue. With the DHS citing privacy exemptions, Judge Carl Nichols's pending ruling holds significant implications for the transparency of Prince Harry's immigration records. The admission of past drug use further complicates matters, underscoring the legal obligations immigrants face regarding disclosure. As political figures weigh in and advocacy groups press for transparency, the Biden administration's stance on releasing the records remains a subject of intense scrutiny. The outcome of this legal battle will not only affect Prince Harry's residency status but also set precedents regarding the public's right to access such information.