Prince Harry’s ‘naughty boy claim’ could hurt his US visa application | Royal | News

Prince Harry is in a pickle as his visa records are scrutinised, with him desperately seeking help from the Biden administration to prevent the details from being revealed.

Initially, the court case The Heritage Foundation v. US Department of Homeland Security was dismissed as “political theatre” and just some “some good mischief.” However, the situation has taken on a more serious tone, and Harry seems to be taking it quite seriously, according to reports.

The Heritage Foundation insists on transparency around Harry’s responses to questions regarding drug use on his visa application. The Department of Homeland Security rejected this request, leaving the decision up to the judge who is currently examining the visa records in his chambers.

A heated debate ignited on a GB News panel over Harry’s visa predicament. Emma Woolf initiated the discussion, stating: “This is about the Biden administration, kind of resisting calls from Harry’s lawyers, whether or not, about releasing his visa records.”, reports the Express US.

READ MORE: Harry did ‘the right thing’ to bow out of Duke of Westminster’s wedding

READ MORE: Harry and Meghan’s camp has ‘leak’ – but ‘it’s painting him in a bad light’

Ms Woolf has expressed intrigue at Prince Harry’s lawyers’ argument that his records should remain confidential due to the stigma associated with law enforcement. She wholeheartedly concurs, stating: “Yes, there is a stigma attached to that, but then don’t say, if you write yes on a visa application, you will be denied entry.”

She finds the debate over whether this stigma applies to Harry and whether his law enforcement records should be made public “fascinating.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, suggests that Harry received preferential treatment when entering the country. They argue that he either lied on his application and was overlooked due to his association with Spare, or he told the truth and was granted an unofficial waiver.

Both scenarios are deemed unacceptable by the foundation as they both imply favouritism.

It now seems that Harry and his legal team are requesting special treatment, arguing that making his records public could tarnish his image, and are using this as their defence.

Source link