4 ms·

This has very strong "cruelty is the point" vibes. There are a fair bit of international flights in the 10-12 hour range. Add some time to pack, get to airport

by Havoc 1y ago

This has very strong "cruelty is the point" vibes. There are a fair bit of international flights in the 10-12 hour range. Add some time to pack, get to airport, baggage check, get through security & how the flight times line up and this seems calculated in a way that is precisely not doable. Never mind people not perpetually online and only seeing this a couple hours later Meanwhile there is to my knowledge no reason why this couldn't have been 48 hours. Still fast, but doable for anyone suitably determined.

cyanydeez 1y ago
I smell "grift is the point" vibes.
- leptons 1y ago
  It's both.
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    Sure, but for _trump_, it's definitely the grift potential. For the snakes that surround him with white supremacy, it's not really cruelty.
jacquesm 1y ago
Yes, no way that any of this isn't finely calibrated to cause maximum misery. I was on the wrong side of the border when 9/11 happened, for months a whole chunk of my life was in limbo. Thanks to giving my bookkeeper emergency power of attorney in just such an eventuality we managed to squeak through but if not for that bit of foresight I'm not sure if we would have.
- boothby 1y ago
  Wild. I flew domestically about a week after 9/11 and forgot that I had my leatherman in my pocket until I got to security... and the xray operator didn't see it in my backpack.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Oh that could have ended quite differently. I've had stuff that looked on second thought very much like explosive devices (little black boxes with a bunch of wires sticking out, internal pouch batteries) in my luggage on more than one occasion. I never so much as got a peep out of anything like that. But for some reason my elderly laptop is a real magnet for official attention and there is absolutely nothing non-stock about that one.
matsemann 1y ago
Why does it even need a time limit? Having the rules apply retroactively for existing holders is plain cruel.
abeppu 1y ago
48 hours would also have been crazy. This should be a bill introduced in Congress, discussed in committee, voted on, and enacted with a date months in the future when it goes into effect, so that people, companies and government agencies can prepare and plan ... you know like an country with laws and procedures.
- frankharv 1y ago
  That argument went out the door when the last administration chose to open the borders. We have laws against that. But they were ignored.
  - pinkmuffinere 1y ago
    I agree that we should obey our laws. However, I don't think "they broke the rules, so I can too!" holds, and I feel it's obvious that it's wrong.
  - jjulius 1y ago
    An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.
  - yibg 1y ago
    The last administration did something you don't like, so this round let's be cruel to people that didn't have anything to do with it?
  - krapp 1y ago
    The Biden administration didn't "open the borders." That isn't a thing that happened.
    - suzdude 1y ago
      Yes, but that's the line some people repeat to themselves over and over to justify the political violence being used against the immigrant community in the United States these days. > "It's not our guy's fault for going after these people, it's your guy's fault for letting so many in" They are just rationalizing their hate.
timr 1y ago
> This has very strong "cruelty is the point" vibes. Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Regardless of what you think about the wisdom of the policy itself, implementing it rapidly is...probably not the best decision. But it's also par for the course for this administration. It's not clear to me that this is an intended consequence of the policy change, or just Microsoft's attorneys being conservative in the face of chaos. A plain-text reading of the EO does not support the interpretation that people with existing H1B visas would be subject to the restrictions, but rather, seems like an ambiguity in the wording that a conservative lawyer could interpret in that manner: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest... > Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  This level of carelessness is malicious. Reckless neglect at best.
  - timr 1y ago
    That's an assertion of opinion, not a fact. This administration has a pattern of implementing policies this way, regardless of domain.
- pinkmuffinere 1y ago
  > Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity How is this adequately explained by stupidity? Sincerely, I truly cannot imagine anyone in the US government is stupid enough to think "15 hours is enough time". This is like, 3rd grade levels of thought.
alwa 1y ago
I’m also confused as to why this is Microsoft-only advice. It keeps sounding like the proclamation involves adjusting an administrative fee for new visas (which, I guess, must be how it bypasses normal rulemaking procedures?). How does that result in a fee for re-entering on a valid existing visa? Is this less about formal policy and more about Microsoft hedging against the possibility of chaotic and arbitrary enforcement? Which seems not-unlikely when a large bureaucracy has a rule change dropped on it with 24 hours to implement…
- dboreham 1y ago
  See other posts above. The proclamation explicitly states that the fee is due upon re-entry for existing visa holders.
skirmish 1y ago
I am firmly convinced this came from Stephen Miller (current homeland security advisor). Unnecessary cruelty to legal immigrants is his trademark style.
zaptheimpaler 1y ago
They always do this because they know their EOs are legal overreaches and will be heavily challenged, but want to set the status quo to enforcing and normalizing the new policy as early as possible. They don't want to give their opponents any advance notice to organize or petition against their actions. Same story with deporting Kilmar Garcia in a hurry. I don't think the cruelty is the point exactly, but it's certainly a bonus for them.

by Havoc 1y ago

cyanydeez 1y ago

I smell "grift is the point" vibes.

leptons 1y ago
It's both.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  Sure, but for _trump_, it's definitely the grift potential. For the snakes that surround him with white supremacy, it's not really cruelty.

jacquesm 1y ago

Yes, no way that any of this isn't finely calibrated to cause maximum misery. I was on the wrong side of the border when 9/11 happened, for months a whole chunk of my life was in limbo. Thanks to giving my bookkeeper emergency power of attorney in just such an eventuality we managed to squeak through but if not for that bit of foresight I'm not sure if we would have.

boothby 1y ago
Wild. I flew domestically about a week after 9/11 and forgot that I had my leatherman in my pocket until I got to security... and the xray operator didn't see it in my backpack.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Oh that could have ended quite differently. I've had stuff that looked on second thought very much like explosive devices (little black boxes with a bunch of wires sticking out, internal pouch batteries) in my luggage on more than one occasion. I never so much as got a peep out of anything like that. But for some reason my elderly laptop is a real magnet for official attention and there is absolutely nothing non-stock about that one.

matsemann 1y ago

Why does it even need a time limit? Having the rules apply retroactively for existing holders is plain cruel.

abeppu 1y ago

48 hours would also have been crazy. This should be a bill introduced in Congress, discussed in committee, voted on, and enacted with a date months in the future when it goes into effect, so that people, companies and government agencies can prepare and plan ... you know like an country with laws and procedures.

frankharv 1y ago
That argument went out the door when the last administration chose to open the borders. We have laws against that. But they were ignored.
- pinkmuffinere 1y ago
  I agree that we should obey our laws. However, I don't think "they broke the rules, so I can too!" holds, and I feel it's obvious that it's wrong.
- jjulius 1y ago
  An eye for an eye make the whole world blind.
- yibg 1y ago
  The last administration did something you don't like, so this round let's be cruel to people that didn't have anything to do with it?
- krapp 1y ago
  The Biden administration didn't "open the borders." That isn't a thing that happened.
  - suzdude 1y ago
    Yes, but that's the line some people repeat to themselves over and over to justify the political violence being used against the immigrant community in the United States these days. > "It's not our guy's fault for going after these people, it's your guy's fault for letting so many in" They are just rationalizing their hate.

timr 1y ago

> This has very strong "cruelty is the point" vibes. Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Regardless of what you think about the wisdom of the policy itself, implementing it rapidly is...probably not the best decision. But it's also par for the course for this administration. It's not clear to me that this is an intended consequence of the policy change, or just Microsoft's attorneys being conservative in the face of chaos. A plain-text reading of the EO does not support the interpretation that people with existing H1B visas would be subject to the restrictions, but rather, seems like an ambiguity in the wording that a conservative lawyer could interpret in that manner: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest... > Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section.

actionfromafar 1y ago
This level of carelessness is malicious. Reckless neglect at best.
- timr 1y ago
  That's an assertion of opinion, not a fact. This administration has a pattern of implementing policies this way, regardless of domain.
pinkmuffinere 1y ago
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity How is this adequately explained by stupidity? Sincerely, I truly cannot imagine anyone in the US government is stupid enough to think "15 hours is enough time". This is like, 3rd grade levels of thought.

alwa 1y ago

I’m also confused as to why this is Microsoft-only advice. It keeps sounding like the proclamation involves adjusting an administrative fee for new visas (which, I guess, must be how it bypasses normal rulemaking procedures?). How does that result in a fee for re-entering on a valid existing visa? Is this less about formal policy and more about Microsoft hedging against the possibility of chaotic and arbitrary enforcement? Which seems not-unlikely when a large bureaucracy has a rule change dropped on it with 24 hours to implement…

dboreham 1y ago
See other posts above. The proclamation explicitly states that the fee is due upon re-entry for existing visa holders.

skirmish 1y ago

I am firmly convinced this came from Stephen Miller (current homeland security advisor). Unnecessary cruelty to legal immigrants is his trademark style.

zaptheimpaler 1y ago

They always do this because they know their EOs are legal overreaches and will be heavily challenged, but want to set the status quo to enforcing and normalizing the new policy as early as possible. They don't want to give their opponents any advance notice to organize or petition against their actions. Same story with deporting Kilmar Garcia in a hurry. I don't think the cruelty is the point exactly, but it's certainly a bonus for them.