4 ms·
You're confusing facts with the opinions of others. Read the EO. There's literally nothing in the EO stating that pre-existing visa holders are subject to the
by timr 1y ago
You're confusing facts with the opinions of others.
Read the EO. There's literally nothing in the EO stating that pre-existing visa holders are subject to the new rules. Someone else is interpreting the EO, and you're assuming that their opinion is the correct interpretation.
- Scoundreller 1y ago> or stating that pre-existing visa holders are subject to the new rules How are you interpreting "on entry"?
- timr 1y agoIn the plain text manner. To me the more relevant portion is this: > ...except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 Again, just doing a plain text reading, this seems to be intended to apply to new applicants, but they didn't explicitly spell it out. It's the sort of thing that would be debated endlessly in the rounds of legal review that accompany a...more traditional...change to law, but when done quickly via EO tends to get overlooked.
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoI see, you're saying the stupidity here is that they didn't clarify whether it applies to existing holders. Given that possible explanation-via-stupidity, it's unlikely that it was pure malice. I actually think you make a good point. I think the proposed method-via-stupidity is important for understanding your initial claim, I doubt many people have read the EO (indeed many will not even read the linked article)
- timr 1y agoYeah, exactly. Given the text of the EO plus the public statements about it from the administration, it sounds like an ambiguous drafting, coupled with lawyers doing what they do best (i.e. the most conservative possible interpretation of any ambiguity).
- hvb2 1y agoI read it as, it either was accompanied by a payment already or it has to be supplemented Where the supplement would obviously be for the existing ones
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- timr 1y agoExcept you have to ignore every prior word of the sentence I quoted to make that interpretation.
- yibg 1y agoThe language of the EO isn't clear, that's the point. Unless the administration comes out with clarification and guidance on what and who is in scope, then one can only assume either maliciousness or incompetence.