The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[MacMadame]

No, it really doesn't. This message took me longer.

 

[taf2002]

I mean it took less time than it did for you to post that question

I didn't exactly ask a question, just musing that I didn't know. I didn't expect an answer.

 

[kedrin]

Possibly the strangest thread drift ever.

 

[ballettmaus]

The Heritage Foundation is suing the US government for Prince Harry's immigration records. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/01/us/prince-harry-court-hearing-drug-visa-scli-intl/index.html

While I have no seen any allegations of preferential treatment, from what I know of the system, I'm not sure how easily anyone else would have gotten their visa if they had disclosed what Harry disclosed. I know of someone from Germany who was denied a tourist visa because of a history of recreational drug use.

With that said, I'm under no illusion that preferential treatment would be unique to Harry or that it doesn't happen. Doesn't make it right, though.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Spousal visas are treated differently, if that's what he came to the US on.

 

[ballettmaus]

Spousal visas are treated differently, if that's what he came to the US on.

Well, every visa category is treated differently from one another but drug use can be a reason for inadmissibility for all applicants. (The language also suggests that the problem wasn't in admitting Harry but with others who may not have been admitted even though they have comparable drug use histories. Unless the Heritage Foundation has cases to compare it to, I don't think they will be able to make a case against DHS based on the relevant policy).

 

[kwanfan1818]

You could have overstayed your visa, which, if you were caught, would have barred you from entering the US legally for a long time, but if you weren't caught and married a US citizen, if you weren't a felon, you could get your green card, all without having any connections. So there is a lot of latitude for spouses, because the purpose is to make the US citizen happy. The same is true in Canada, although the details are different. And there are many decisions made in immigration courts where the circumstances are identical, but the outcomes are different, based on whom you get in front of, and who appointed them for their philosophy.

 

[MacMadame]

Is it normal to treat teenage drug use as relevant to the visa application of a grown adult who is pushing 40?

 

[ballettmaus]

Is it normal to treat teenage drug use as relevant to the visa application of a grown adult who is pushing 40?

The question I always had to answer didn't ask for your age, just if you ever used drugs. As far as I know, if you answer yes on ESTA, you will have to apply for a tourist visa (and before ESTA, you were likely to be denied entry at the airport) and all visas come with an interview in which I would imagine they ask for specifics and make a decision based on that.

The language on drug use gives USCIS a lot of leeway, though. That's why I think that The Heritage Foundation would only be able to prove wrongdoing if they could prove that someone else was treated differently even though they had the same or a similar drug use history as Harry. But given that it's The Heritage Foundation, the question is if this is really about Harry or if they have a different agenda.

You could have overstayed your visa, which, if you were caught, would have barred you from entering the US legally for a long time, but if you weren't caught and married a US citizen, if you weren't a felon, you could get your green card, all without having any connections. So there is a lot of latitude for spouses, because the purpose is to make the US citizen happy.

I think what you say is true for any visa. If you didn't get caught, how would USCIS want to prove that you did what you say you didn't do?

But all visa applications include the question if you have ever used drugs and Harry admitted to his drug use publicly and that's what gave The Heritage Foundation the ammunition they were looking for. (I read elsewhere that it's about a 3-year visa that is up for renewal. No idea if that is true and if that would be a spousal visa).

 

[Karen-W]

Is it normal to treat teenage drug use as relevant to the visa application of a grown adult who is pushing 40?

Yeah, well, Harry has also admitted to using both psychedelic mushrooms and pot at Courtney Cox's house in, what 2015 or 2016? So, within five years of said visa application, when he was well past his teen years and into his 30s? It would seem that whatever drug use he engaged in prior to joining the British Army was resumed once he left the British Army.

There have been high profile celebrities (Nigella Lawson, Amy Winehouse, etc) who have been denied US visas because of previous drug use, so the question is whether or not Harry had to follow the same rules as anyone else with a past history or was he granted special consideration because of who he is. There are ways for people to be approved for a visa with a past drug history, but they involve submitting to a drug test in their home country at the US consulate or embassy before the visa application is approved. Did Harry have to do that?

I get that his spouse is an American citizen and we were in the middle of the pandemic when they relocated from Vancouver to Los Angeles, so I'd be inclined to cut the ICS some slack if they did approve his initial visa application, regardless of what he said about any past drug use, but if he lied about it on that application, I'd hope they deny the renewal application and deport him.

 

[puglover]

Harry has not just spoken of his drug use but has also very publicly encouraged it as a solution to serious life problems. At one point he suggests psychedelic drug use is "fundamental" to his well-being and speaks of the positives of taking recreational drugs as "relaxation, relief, a feeling of lightness, cleaning the windshield". I am surprised that there is not more of an outcry from the many, many who have lost loved ones who were guilty only of seeking those things Harry gives credit to drugs for. No acknowledgement either that he is a prince, no worry of death from overdose when you have security with you and no downward spiral that could see him out on the street, destitute and broke, willing to do anything for his next fix. Plus, it encourages young people to think "everyone is doing it" when royalty sings its praises.

 

[kwanfan1818]

I think what you say is true for any visa. If you didn't get caught, how would USCIS want to prove that you did what you say you didn't do?

Because when you apply for your green card, they ask you when and how you entered the US, and they have the visa documentation to show whether you're lying. So you tell them the truth on your green card application. That is different from drug use, unless you lie about it and your FBI fingerprint search shows a drug conviction.

So, if he lied when applying for his visa, and then admitted to it in a widely publicized book, then the question is whether he was treated differently after the lie was exposed. If he didn'f lie on the visa application, the question is whether he was given special treatment and allowed in. But good luck with that on the face of it, because rulings and decisions are all over the place. Which may be what they're getting at, but I agree that their agenda is far more reaching.

 

[Wyliefan]

What I don't understand is why the Heritage Foundation would care about Harry. I know they have a bee in their bonnet about immigration, but he doesn't exactly fit the demographic they usually complain about.

 

[kwanfan1818]

They don't. It's just a door.

 

[taf2002]

My husband came in on a spousal visa & he wasn't asked any questions about drugs. (He did do recreational use in the 70s.) Also he had a DUI in Canada but their background check wasn't detailed enough to reveal it. He got his green card within the 1st 6 mos he was here. It's been renewed 3 times.

 

[Winnipeg]

What I find objectionable about Harry and drugs is his voicing a public opinion of drugs being good for you in certain cases. How the heck is he in the position of making a medical recommendation? I doubt very much whether he has one iota of medical or even basic science education.

Same went for Tom Cruise when he publicly opined that post partem depression could be cured without drugs inferring a person would be weak to seek help for this condition. His opinion was in response to a public statement by Brooke Shields about her own struggle with this type of depression. Who did he think he was saying her doctors were wrong and she was wrong and making her seem weak to boot. He may be a good actor but he is not a medical doctor and has no business making medical recommendations and statements.

Same with Harry aka drug expert.

 

[Sparks]

Same went for Tom Cruise when he publicly opined that post partem depression could be cured without drugs inferring a person would be weak to seek help for this condition. His opinion was in response to a public statement by Brooke Shields about her own struggle with this type of depression. Who did he think he was saying her doctors were wrong and she was wrong and making her seem weak to boot.

Because Tom Cruise is a Scientologist

 

[Winnipeg]

A Scientologist..............uh, ok, that makes him qualified?

 

[Sparks]

A Scientologist..............uh, ok, that makes him qualified?

Absolutely not. That's the point.

 

[kwanfan1818]

Tom Cruise was speaking about someone else's experience. Was Prince Harry talking about his own when he said drug use could be positive in some cases? That isn't a particularly unusual claim.

 

[puglover]

You don't need a medical degree to endorse something or relate the positives you have gained from it. It seems a bit irresponsible to me though, to not voice any words of caution, including the illegality of it, if you are a role model or influencer.

 

[MacMadame]

The language on drug use gives USCIS a lot of leeway, though. That's why I think that The Heritage Foundation would only be able to prove wrongdoing if they could prove that someone else was treated differently even though they had the same or a similar drug use history as Harry. But given that it's The Heritage Foundation, the question is if this is really about Harry or if they have a different agenda.

They'd need more than one person treated differently. They'd have to show a pattern of how they treat these cases and that Harry was treated differently from that pattern. Don't forget that the pattern could include being lenient towards people in Harry's situation.

Well, that would be true if we had judges who actually follow the law.

Yeah, well, Harry has also admitted to using both psychedelic mushrooms and pot at Courtney Cox's house in, what 2015 or 2016?

Pot is legal in CA and while it wasn't back then, many people convicted of marijuana offenses have been pardoned because it is legal now. Psychedelic mushrooms aren't legal now but they are on the way to becoming legal due to their benefits in treating certain psychological conditions including PTSD.

What I find objectionable about Harry and drugs is his voicing a public opinion of drugs being good for you in certain cases. How the heck is he in the position of making a medical recommendation? I doubt very much whether he has one iota of medical or even basic science education.

He's repeating what many experts say while recounting his personal experience. Lots of people do this without condemnation.

 

[Coco]

Were pot and psychedelic mushrooms illegal in the place and time when Harry took them?

I mean they must have been otherwise this case would be a non-starter. I think the heritage foundation is going after him because he and his wife are relatively outspoken in support of "liberal" causes. Also, they are probably hoping there is something that will let them argue Harry had to bribe his way in here.

 

[MacMadame]

Were pot and psychedelic mushrooms illegal in the place and time when Harry took them?

I mean they must have been otherwise this case would be a non-starter. I think the heritage foundation is going after him because he and his wife are relatively outspoken in support of "liberal" causes. Also, they are probably hoping there is something that will let them argue Harry had to bribe his way in here.

Will they also go after Melania's path to citizenship?

 

[Yogadgaf]

Will they also go after Melania's path to citizenship?

Touche....

 

[Yogadgaf]

Touche...

 

[MacMadame]

On a different subject:

Harry v the Mirror: what will happen when prince enters the witness box?

Duke of Sussex to accuse journalists of phone hacking but publisher will in turn try to cast doubt on royal’s evidence

www.theguardian.com

 

[Winnipeg]

Has anyone seen him testify? I have not but heard he is on the 2nd day and that he broke down on the stand? I heard this on the news but did not see it myself.

 

[MacMadame]

Has anyone seen him testify? I have not but heard he is on the 2nd day and that he broke down on the stand? I heard this on the news but did not see it myself.

This is yesterday's report

Prince Harry kept calm on witness stand, but there is much more to come

The King's son became the first royal since 1891 to give evidence in court. Lawyers left happy with Harry's calm nature on the stand, but this is only day one.

news.sky.com

 

[starrynight]

No cameras allowed in UK courts - and a pastel sketch and a transcript doesn’t have quite the same drama.

I don’t imagine UK court proceedings are nearly as entertaining as US celebrity ones.