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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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…

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

I smell "grift is the point" vibes.

> 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/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.