Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,972
I have zero idea how being a royal affects things (probably a lot) but I wonder what type of visa he went in with. Was he there as a tourist which severely limits any money making, or some kind of special work visa like the P-2? The Trump administration has recently come down hard on the P-2 which is the one most models, entertainers, etc. use and I believe the one two of his wives used, ironically. The point of that visa seems to be that you have a unique face or talent or whatever and therefore are not taking a job from an American (our daughter who is a model worked in the US with that visa). The fact he is married to an American does not seem to play a major role in the short term as usually you have to apply from outside the US.
 

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
27,907
Did he actually run the Invictus Games, or was he a figurehead? And what has he actually done with regard to his and his wife's foundation? I don't know the answer to either of these questions and am curious.
I'm sure he didn't run the Invictus Games single-handedly, but AFAIK he was very involved in the logistics and in the staging of the actual events - in addition to doing all the ceremonial duties. Most of the descriptions of his involvement (the ones I saw anyway) seemed to suggest he was much more hands-on in his involvement than many high-profile individuals are with "their" initiatives.

As for the foundation - the new version of which will apparently be a non-profit - if nothing else H&M seem to be very involved in setting the strategy and determining the priorities. I don't know how much involvement they have, or will have, in the day-to-day operations.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,407
Does starting a charity count as employment for a work visa though? Because I expect they will have to get separate work because running a charity doesn’t generate personal wealth.

I’m confused about how people talk about the charity as if it will be their jobs. They will need to be earning millions each year to sustain their lifestyle. I know that workers for charities get salaries, but I don’t see how they could justify drawing salaries any higher than a regular business executive.
 
Last edited:

taf2002

Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
Messages
24,606
When I married a Canadian he had to fill out a lot of forms & pay fees & wait for a green card until he could work but we never felt there was any danger that he wouldn't be allowed to stay. And in the ensuing years he does all of his paperwork by mail. He had never been investigated or questioned about staying. I don't think Harry will have any trouble.
 

puglover

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,972
Three of my children are married to Americans and live in the US. Two of them went to university there on student visas, met and married their spouses and stayed. They were told they should not marry in Canada and try to come in as a spouse as then they would have a much more challenging time getting back across the border even though they were still students. In fact, we were advised that our daughter should not wear her engagement ring at the border and my husband and I took the wedding dress down. Both were restricted in work (only on campus) and it took some time for them to be granted residence during which time they were obligated to stay in the US. I believe for each it took about 1 1/2 years. My other daughter had a work visa for modelling and she was allowed to leave the country for work. Her application was accepted much quicker so it seems different rules for different folks. My husband has dual citizenship and pays US taxes so they could have qualified under his citizenship but we were advised the way they chose to do it was the easiest way. This was all way before Trump and I doubt it has gotten any easier. I still doubt Harry will have any problems though.
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,407
I’m kind of surprised royals are permitted dual citizenship. In Australia all members of parliament have to renounce other citizenships so as to avoid conflicts of interest.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,927
I’m kind of surprised royals are permitted dual citizenship. In Australia all members of parliament have to renounce other citizenships so as to avoid conflicts of interest.
Members of the Royal Family do not serve in Parliament, so the problem is avoided. :)
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,407
Members of the Royal Family do not serve in Parliament, so the problem is avoided. :)
Maybe only the monarch? Because doesnt the Queen technically have a huge amount of power over parliament? Surely the monarch couldn’t be a dual citizen?
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,927
Maybe only the monarch? Because doesnt the Queen technically have a huge amount of power over parliament? Surely the monarch couldn’t be a dual citizen?
Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of many countries, including Australia.

The British Constitution is unwritten, but the present Queen has chosen not to exercise a good deal of whatever theoretical "power" she has. For example, when the Conservatives failed to obtain an outright majority in Parliament in the 2010 and 2017 elections, she made the incumbent Prime Ministers advise her as to whom to ask to form the Government rather than making the decision herself (as some of her predecessors had done). In so doing, she has effectively altered the Constitution so that it would be very difficult for a future sovereign not to require such advice.

And, although several members of the Royal Family do hold noble titles, they don't sit in the House of Lords, nor did they before the Lords was reformed.
 
Last edited:

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,174
I’m kind of surprised royals are permitted dual citizenship. In Australia all members of parliament have to renounce other citizenships so as to avoid conflicts of interest.
Which royal has dual citizenship?

Nobody is going to make an example out of Harry when it comes to immigration. He's as VIP as could possibly be.
 

kwanfan1818

I <3 Kozuka
Messages
32,609
Like if you outstay your visa, they'll never let you back in again.
That is not automatically the case in the US. Typically overstaying a visa, if you don't qualify for a visa waiver (or don't apply), is a three- or ten-year ban, depending on how long you overstayed. There are also a number of conditions that don't count towards the overstaying calculation. The border guard has all kinds of discretion about letting you back into the US. Or not.

ETA: Spouses of US citizens need to enter the country legally in the first place, but then they qualify for status adjustment, to allow them to stay until they get longer term status, like a green card.
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,330
ETA: Spouses of US citizens need to enter the country legally in the first place, but then they qualify for status adjustment, to allow them to stay until they get longer term status, like a green card.
I think that may be the problem. Adjustment of status is on ice at the moment as far as I know. If he entered as a spouse but without a visa/on the visa-waiver then his three months may simply be up.

(If Meghan can act as his sponsor and has an income that exceeds I believe $23,000 per year, he should be fine with or without a job)
 

Lemonade20

Active Member
Messages
221
Harry isn’t an ordinary man, I’m sure he has special status. Even after leaving the royal family. I hope he gets to see his UK family again soon, it must be hard being that far away.
 

kwanfan1818

I <3 Kozuka
Messages
32,609
Adjustment of status is on ice at the moment as far as I know. If he entered as a spouse but without a visa/on the visa-waiver then his three months may simply be up.
What would be an overstay without a pending application is not with a pending application. Similarly for an application for an alien relative (I-130) to emigrate or spouse already in the US (I-485), which is the likely route for him.

According to the USCIS site, some offices opened on June 4, and I don't see anything on the site that says they aren't accepting green card applications, but lots of articles talk about how the backlog is expanding and taking longer to process. The tricky thing is is that while overstay isn't an issue during a pending green card application, you have to get a travel document every time you leave the US, or they considered your application abandoned. That might not be an issue now, but with application backlogs, including all of the appointments, biometrics, etc., that could be tiresome, but that's what staff and lawyers are for.
 

Jenny

From the Bloc
Messages
21,179
I have to assume that Harry has a very good immigration lawyer working with him. Even though Meghan has experience as an American working in Canada and then living in the UK, it's entirely different to be a foreigner trying to make it work in the US. The laws - and the people who administer them, including the people who process the applications and those who enforce them including border control - are open to a lot of interpretation, and a lot can depend on who you are dealing with on that particular day, and what mood they're in.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,282
So @aftershocks, only you have freedom of speech re H&M? You attack anyone who doesn't bow down. Obviously you've appointed yourself as champion for them, even when they don't need championing. starrynight said it was a rumor, she didn't piss in Meghan's cereal. Clearly you don't want to participate in discussion like the rest of us. Go on preaching to the 1 person choir.
So @taf2002, I guess you are the self-appointed defender of those who try to hide behind derogatory comments by suggesting they are just voicing 'their opinion,' and don't really mean anything negative against Meghan. The royalty threads have quite often been full of slights and putdown comments toward Meghan, in addition to blatantly biased comments by a few posters who have received at least some push back from posters other than myself.

There is no honest and straightforward discussion in the royalty threads (particularly in the advent of Meghan joining the royal family) unless it's strictly lighthearted fluff or making fun, or voicing putdowns against Meghan that apparently are being absorbed from the 24/7 negativity against the Sussexes spewed by tabloids and often picked up by mainstream media outlets.

It's fascinating how you ignore the main points I'm making and pick out something superficial. I didn't call out @starrynight because she's repeating what she's read, as if it's true, and then qualifying it and trying to cover herself by noting it might not be true. In fact, there's no basis for the story (i.e., the intentional fiction) that Meghan 'wants to run for U.S. President.' What it amounts to is an outright lie, not a rumor.

To clarify what should need no clarification: I pointed out that starrynight was being negative and condescending toward Meghan personally by attempting to equate her to Paris Hilton, and to claim Meghan 'couldn't handle the royal family,' so that means 'she couldn't handle politics.' :duh: There's no evidence she's planning to go into politics, so why bother with using those lies to put Meghan down? Actually, there are factions within the royal palaces who can't handle the reality that Meghan is a strong, talented, confident woman whose mother is African American! They also can't handle Meghan and Harry marrying and making an impact together as a couple. Meghan was subjected to relentless and cruel dragging by the British media and no one in the royal firm stepped up to support her or to condemn those attacks. It was particularly vicious and racist coming at a time when she was pregnant. In part, Meghan was being scapegoated so that the media would not focus on Prince Andrew's scandalous woes, or on the gossipy leaks regarding an affair by another member of that family. :COP:

If I'm a 'choir of one' as you say, so be it. But at least try to base your putdowns toward me on what I've actually said.
 

aftershocks

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,282
^^ Characterizing this development as 'a new gig' for the Sussexes strikes me as speculative putdown language. It is what it is, which doesn't mean they are going to be speaking before a live audience anytime soon @Vagabond. Who knows what the immediate future is going to hold for most of us these days. It might be possible they will start small and possibly begin giving remote talks to various groups or organizations. That's just a guess on my part, following from your querulousness.
_______________________________________________________________________

A lot of people seem interested in dissecting Meghan and Harry, and speculating about their plans. I would suggest to try and be careful about believing everything the British tabloids and right wing U.S. media say about the Sussexes. Even the mainstream outlets in the U.S. pick up some of the tabloid tales. Most of the bs coming from the British tabloids is designed to perpetuate twisted, negative narratives. As I've continually pointed out, a lot is going on regarding the royal family and the stepping away from royal life by Meghan & Harry.

I've heard the story just posted above about M&H signing up with the same firm as the Obamas, to pursue speaking engagements. Finally more straightforward and positive Sussex news. It's funny how when real news about the Sussexes isn't available, lots of made-up lies abound. No matter what, even the reports about the positive things M&H are actually doing, end up being negatively twisted in some quarters of the media at some point. Meanwhile, M&H keep focusing on creating a fulfilling life for themselves, which includes their purposeful goals for making a positive difference for others.

And yeah, the Sussexes don't need championing by me @taf2002. I don't need to 'champion' them because they aren't doing the good things they are passionate about in order to be seen as champions in anyone's eyes. They are not 'gods.' It's a fact (as @starrynight has recently posted) that none of the royals are 'gods.' It's silly for anyone to ever think of them as such. As far as I can see, M&H are among the modern royals who wish to actually demonstrate they are not above others by genuinely and consistently giving of themselves. My admiration for M&H's courage in fighting back against the scurrilous and dangerous British tabloid media has nothing to do with 'worship.' They are simply two young people in love, trying to live their lives joyfully and responsibly. They aren't perfect people; they are human and fallible. But the amount of crap that's been thrown at them would require a lot digging away before being able to even begin sifting through to credibly criticize them about something, if that's the aim of all the current overdone scrutiny. Mostly, the ongoing criticism of the Sussexes is petty and based on tabloid lies.


Oh well, the latest news about the Sussexes is also that "Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is suing Splash News for invading his privacy." That's in reference to the intrusive photos taken of Meghan carrying her son and walking her dogs on Vancouver Island earlier this year. Apparently, Splash News refused to settle out of court. The likely reason that Archie is being named as suing (with Meghan's name also attached) is because Archie is a minor and Meghan suing herself might not be successful because she's a public figure. I'm sure the main reason for the Sussexes taking this action is because they wish to send a strong message that they will fight to protect Archie's privacy.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 5)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information