Prince Harry's immigration records made public amid court battle
The United States Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday released documents showing that Prince Harry did not receive favorable treatment in the process of obtaining his U.S. visa.
A DHS official said in the heavily redacted immigration court documents that his immigration process received no favorable treatment.
"This speculation by Plaintiffs does not point to any evidence of government misconduct," the agency stated in one of the documents. "The records, as explained above, do not support such an allegation but show the regulatory process involved in reviewing and granting immigration benefits which was done in compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 and applicable rules and regulations."
Prince Harry's visit with King Charles III, absence of Prince William sparks reconciliation questions
The documents were released after the Heritage Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Harry's immigration documents in 2023, followed by a lawsuit calling for DHS to expedite the process because of of the public interest in the case and media coverage of the prince's admitted drug use when he was younger.
U.S. visa applications ask about current and past drug use, and admissions of drug use can lead to denial, based on different factors.
The Heritage Foundation has said previously in court filings that the drug use "surfaced the question" about whether Harry received favorable treatment in being granted entry to the U.S. and whether Harry disclosed his past in his visa application, as required.
A Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled on March 7 that Harry's U.S. immigration files be released by the end of day Tuesday.
However, DHS redacted the full immigration record, including his status in the United States.
"To release his exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others," the court filing says. "The Duke of Sussex has not consented to disclosure of his records to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have not proven sufficient public interest to outweigh the Duke's right to privacy concerning any other potential CBP records about him that may or may not exist."
ABC News has reached out to the Heritage Foundation for comment on the redacted documents' release and has not yet heard back.
A representative for Harry has also not yet replied to ABC News' request for comment.
Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, moved to the United States in 2020 after stepping away from their senior roles in Britain's royal family.
Harry, the youngest son of King Charles III, and Meghan now live in Montecito, California, with their two children, Archie and Lilibet.
Last April, Harry named the U.S. as his official residence in documents filed with Companies House, a government-run registry of companies in the United Kingdom.
The filing lists the date of Harry's residency change as June 29, 2023, the date that Buckingham Palace confirmed Harry and Meghan had officially moved out of Frogmore Cottage, their former home in Windsor.
Prince Harry turns 40 with birthday wishes from King Charles, Prince William and Princess Kate
Harry told ABC News' Will Reeve last year that he has considered getting his American citizenship.
"The American citizenship is a thought that has crossed my mind, but certainly is not something that is a high priority for me right now," he told Reeve in an interview that aired Feb. 16, 2024.
When asked what would stop him from doing so, Harry replied, "I have no idea."
In February, amid the Heritage Foundation's lawsuit, President Donald Trump told the New York Post he has no plans to deport Harry, saying, "I don't want to do that."
'I'll leave him alone. He's got enough problems with his wife. She's terrible," Trump said, referring to Meghan, who reportedly called Trump "divisive' and 'misogynistic' during the 2016 presidential election, two years before she wed Harry.
Prince Harry's immigration records made public amid court battle originally appeared on goodmorningamerica.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ICE launches bold courthouse migrant arrest strategy to fast-track deportations Biden avoided
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are beginning a nationwide initiative to arrest illegal immigrants after asylum hearings as they leave courtrooms, multiple sources familiar with the matter confirmed to Fox News. The effort will target those who have been living in the United States for less than two years, sources said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strategy aims to get illegal immigration cases dropped. Federal officials plan to arrest migrants and place them in expedited removal proceedings, fast-tracking them to deportation out of the country, allowing for almost-immediate removal without a hearing before an immigration judge, according to ICE sources. If a migrant has an active, pending court case, expedited removal cannot happen, which is why DHS officials are planning to get them dropped. Immigration judges, however, have to agree to drop cases, and so far, they are cooperating with the effort, sources said. Ice Begins New, Nationwide Effort To Arrest Illegal Aliens At Immigration Hearings The initiative will likely cause controversy because migrants will be disincentivized from attending asylum hearings, and it will involve arrests of migrants with no criminal histories aside from entering the United States illegally. Read On The Fox News App Videos posted to social media and captured by local news across the country show the ICE arrests already happening in various courthouses. Ice Touts Record-breaking Immigration Enforcement During Trump's First 100 Days "Secretary Noem is reversing Biden's catch-and-release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets," a DHS spokesperson told Fox News. "This Administration is once again implementing the rule of law." The spokesperson added that "most aliens who illegally entered the United States within the past two years are subject to expedited removals." "Biden ignored this legal fact and chose to release millions of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, into the country with a notice to appear before an immigration judge," the spokesperson said. "ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been. If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation." Gregg Jarrett, Fox News legal analyst and commentator, noted the Supreme Court's recent ruling "that President Trump had the authority to end Biden's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain specified migrants who have been in the U.S. for less than two years." "That means they are eligible for expedited deportation," he said. "There is no law that prevents ICE from carrying out the initiative by making arrests at immigration/asylum hearings. From a safety standpoint, it makes sense. Indeed, it has been a longstanding practice." Ice Forced To Release Some Illegal Migrants Who Could Pose Danger To Americans: Immigration Attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, immigration attorney and CEO and owner of Lincoln-Goldfinch Law, told Fox News Digital that while "ICE can go in and conduct apprehensions in courthouses," such arrests "can be restricted" if immigration judges refuse to dismiss cases. WATCH: Attorney explains effort to detain illegal immigrants in courthouses "Because the playbook is this: the immigrant goes into their court hearing. The DHS attorney, which is essentially the prosecutor, tells the judge, 'Judge, we actually want to dismiss this case. We don't want to pursue it.' And in many instances, the judge will just dismiss over objection of the immigrant or [if] the immigrant doesn't know any better, and they say, 'Sure, that sounds great.' And then they walk out of the courtroom, and they're apprehended," Lincoln-Goldfinch explained. If judges refuse to dismiss cases, they can "maintain their own jurisdiction over what happens with [an immigrant] because this person is in immigration court proceedings and the judge gets to decide what happens to them so long as they don't dismiss the case." Jarrett believes "the likelihood of interference is minimal" when asked whether judges might try to stop the arrests. "Most asylum and deportation hearings are in front of an immigration judge who is an employee of the Justice Department," he said. "Those hearings occur in federal courthouses or detention facilities, so the likelihood of interference is minimal. You would not have, for example, a state court judge trying to interfere, as we saw in [Milwaukee, Wisconsin]." Illegal Immigrant Arrests Skyrocket Under Trump Ice Compared To Biden Levels Last Year: 'Worst Of The Worst' Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, was indicted last month on federal charges of obstruction of proceedings before a U.S. agency and unlawful concealment of an individual subject to arrest after she allegedly directed an illegal immigrant defendant to leave through a private exit at the Milwaukee County Courthouse while ICE officials were serving a warrant for his arrest. WATCH: WISCONSIN JUDGE SEEN TALKING TO ICE AGENTS Lincoln-Goldfinch, meanwhile, believes the new DHS effort is a scheme for the Trump administration to easily and quickly boost illegal immigrant apprehension numbers, and that "they are not targeting the population of immigrants that Trump and Kristi Noem purport to want to go after, and that is law-breaking, dangerous, criminal history type of immigrants." This initiative, she said, targets illegal immigrants trying to go through a legal citizenship process. "Why are we not sending ICE after the people that they're claiming are here to harm us? It doesn't make sense from a resource expenditure perspective," she said. "And I think that is the main objection. So do I think this will be challenged in court? But on top of that, I think that people should really take issue with the fact ICE is going after people who are following the rules and they're playing dirty tricks and games in order to get them to dismiss their cases and then they arrest them walking out of the courtroom." WATCH: INSIDE THE THREATS AND DANGERS ICE AGENTS FACE In an April 29 press release marking 100 days in office, DHS announced that border apprehensions were down 95% since President Donald Trump took office, and more migrants are returning to their home countries to avoid deportation. The administration also noted that it had arrested more than 158,000 illegal aliens in 2025 alone, including more than 600 members of Tren de Aragua, saying federal officials are "targeting the worst of the worst" with 75% of illegal immigrant arrests involving those with convictions or pending article source: Trump's ICE launches bold courthouse migrant arrest strategy to fast-track deportations Biden avoided
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
DHS Sec. Noem praised Trump for sending National Guard. She opposed it when Biden for considered it
DHS Sec. Noem praised Trump for sending National Guard. She opposed it when Biden for considered it Show Caption Hide Caption Trump orders troops to LA as agents, protesters clash over immigration President Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to combat violent protesters opposed to immigration enforcement. WASHINGTON – As South Dakota governor in February 2024, Kristi Noem threatened then-President Joe Biden when Democrats said he should federalize the National Guard in Texas to disrupt that state governor's anti-immigration efforts. If he did, Noem warned, Biden would be mounting a 'direct attack on states' rights,' and sparking a 'war' between Washington and Republican-led state governments, she said in a Feb. 6, 2024 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. On June 8, Noem − now President Donald Trump's Homeland Security secretary − cheered Trump for doing the same thing to the Democratic governor of the state of California. Over the weekend, Trump deployed riot gear-clad National Guard troops to Los Angeles to shut down anti-immigration protests over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. If Newsom 'was doing his job," Noem said, "our ICE agents would not be injured and attacked while doing their jobs and carrying out immigration enforcement." 'Under the leadership of @POTUS," Noem added in a post on X, "Trump we will put the safety of American citizens FIRST not these criminal illegal aliens that sanctuary city politicians are defending.' Trump said late Sunday that he sent the National Guard to California to restore order amid mounting violent clashes between police and rock-throwing protesters angry at his aggressive efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. illegally. 'We're not going to let this happen to our country." Traditionally, it is up to the governor of a particular state to deploy the National Guard. Trump's National Guard deployment of 2,000 troops in Los Angeles is expected to last 60 days, according to a directive from California's adjutant general. Trump's memo June 7 invoked a section of federal code authorizing the president to call the guard into service to 'repel an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation' or to 'suppress a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' or to 'execute the laws of the United States when the President is unable to do so with regular forces.' Newsom has vocally opposed Trump's intervention, and on Sunday formally asked the President to rescind the 'unlawful' deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty," he said, 'Rescind the order. Return control to California.' On CBS News' Face the Nation Sunday, Noem explained her reversal by saying, "Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that he makes bad decisions, and that's why the President chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," Noem said. "And that's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized so they can use their special skill set to keep peace." Noem was against deploying the National Guard when the governor in question was a Republican Last year, Noem's tune was much different. At the time, Democratic lawmakers and immigration-rights activists were lobbying heavily for Biden to federalize the National Guard in Texas to defuse a brewing crisis there over the state's aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration. More: National Guard on the ground in LA as immigration tensions escalate: Live updates Biden's Department of Homeland Security was complaining that razor wire that Texas had installed at the border with Mexico was preventing DHS agents from Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing their jobs. Activists said the wire was endangering the lives of those trying to cross into the United States, especially via rivers at the border where the wire was installed. The Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government could cut through the razor wire. But the Republican governor in Texas, Greg Abbott, was refusing to take it down. The dispute led to a prolonged standoff between Abbott and the Biden administration, with the Texas National Guard at times blocking Border Patrol agents from accessing certain areas of the border. To resolve the standoff, Democrats and others demanded that Biden federalize National Guard soldiers in Texas and order them to stand down and get out of the way of federal immigration agents. In response, Noem not only sent National Guard soldiers from South Dakota to the border to support Abbott's efforts. She also went there personally, she said at the time, to stand with him in case Biden decided to intervene against Abbott's wishes. A 'direct attack on states' rights' that would spark a 'war' For his part, Biden never said he was even considering the move, which would have been unprecedented in recent history. The last time a President deployed the National Guard over the home state governor's objections was during the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, when Southern governors refused to comply with orders to desegregate schools and other public institutions. 'That would be a boneheaded move on his part, total disaster,' Abbott told conservative host Tucker Carlson on his show 'Uncensored." In her interview with Hannity, the Fox News host told Noem that she and other Republican governors who "stood by Gov. Abbott's side' and opposed federal intervention likely caused Biden to back down from doing something that likely would "have precipitated a real, real crisis down there.' That's why she personally went down to Texas, Noem said, because she recognized 'the real threat that was to states' rights.' 'We will defend our Constitution. We will defend our rights because the last several years, we've seen Democrats take away our freedom of religion, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of speech,' Noem told Hannity. 'We can't let them take away our state's rights too, especially our rights protect ourselves.'
