Initial media reporting once again mimics headless chicken.

gizmo385 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not the media’s fault that the initial executive order was an ambiguous mess that threatened the livelihoods of immigrants all across the country.

▲

apical_dendrite 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No - the initial reporting accurately reflected what was in the proclamation. The proclamation did not exclude people already on H1B visas. That's why Microsoft and other huge companies were telling their employees not to leave the US or to get back to the US within 24 hours. This is the administration doing cleanup because they either screwed up drafting the proclamation, or they got so much pushback that they had to backtrack.

▲

Izikiel43 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that’s the weird thing, they could have specified this in the proclamation that it only applies for next years lottery starting March next year, or uscis could have changed the fees to charge the money for new petitions, which happens next year.

They did neither.

▲

apical_dendrite 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's extremely typical of this administration to move fast and do very sloppy work, with very little consideration of the consequences of their actions. There are many examples. DOGE repeatedly fired and then had to scramble to re-hire people either because they didn't realize that they were firing people who did critical jobs (security for transporting nuclear materials for instance) or because they just blatantly broke the law and the courts issued injunctions.

	▲	sumedh 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's extremely typical of this administration to move fast and do very sloppy work Isnt that Silicon Valley's mantra.

▲

Izikiel43 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you read the proclamation?

I did read it, the media reporting was accurate at the time, the proclamation as is doesn’t say anything about new applications, it just says that h1b holders won’t be let in unless they can prove the 100k$ fee was paid by their company starting September 21st.

The lawyers at my employer, much more qualified than me regarding law matters, reached the same conclusion as I did as a layman on the subject.

▲

recursivecaveat 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even if you're 90% sure it means it doesn't apply to current holders, that's a 10% chance that not cutting your trip short costs $100,000. Very possible your employer doesn't want to pay that and you're suddenly unemployed and visa-less. Unless it's 101% crystal clear the status of visa holders, this was inevitable.

▲

pfannkuchen 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have read it. I agree it was ambiguous in that area, but it would make absolutely no sense to restrict entry for people already in the program who happen to be on vacation or whatever. It did not state that it would do that, it just did not explicitly state that it wouldn’t. I think clarification is appropriate, but the reporting seemed to be that the least charitable interpretation WOULD happen, not that the least charitable interpretation COULD technically happen based on the language used. I believe the President has the authority to effectively cancel the program if he wanted to, so why would they do something bizarre and sneaky like block returning vacationers.

	▲	tempodox 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> … it would make absolutely no sense … As if that ever stopped this administration from doing something.
	▲	tripletao 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Executive Order 13769 (the so-called "Muslim Ban") actually was effective immediately, resulting in a similar race to the airport during its chaotic implementation. Hundreds of people with previously lawful immigration status were denied entry or detained, including dozens with green cards despite those being excluded by the EO. In any case this new order was not ambiguous. It plainly said the restriction was on "entry", not the issuance of new visas. Nobody reading the text of the order claimed otherwise. The Trump administration just changed their position, in informal guidance rather than a formal executive order but with similar practical and legal effect. Anyone who returned early was effectively hedging, paying the airline change fee and some inconvenience to avoid a potential $100k fee or worse, with downsides including job loss--potentially leading to forced repatriation--if your employer doesn't pay, and indefinite detention under harsh conditions. That hedge currently seems likely to expire worthless; but with such an imbalanced payoff, are you really saying you wouldn't have paid it yourself?
	▲	Izikiel43 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The lawyers at my employer, much more qualified than me regarding law matters, reached the same conclusion as I did as a layman on the subject. Even expert interpretation considered it WOULD happen.