Hacker News Reader

Comment by nrmitchi | Hacker News Reader

A "White House Official" may be saying this now, but it is not what was in the EO that was actually signed. There were no exclusions for current holders, and the start date was explicitly September 21, 2025 (a date that does apply to the "next lottery").

They are more than welcome to roll back this asinine decision, but pretending that everyone else is just mis-interpreting is gaslighting.

Either way, until there is an official, in-writting announcement that can be depended on, no one should be taking the advice of an unnamed White House source.

In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.

View on HN

> Either way, until there is an official, in-writting announcement that can be depended on, no one should be taking the advice of an unnamed White House source.

There is literally nothing out of this White House you can depend on, even if it is in-writing & signed with the presidents blood. If he feels like it he will ignore it and use mob tactics to get his will through.

I agree with the first part, but for the second, this is not an unnamed WH source, it is the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt

The Press Secretary isn't the Supreme Court. Her say-so doesn't change the plain text of the order, and you're rolling the dice as to which any given border agent is going to choose to believe.

USCIS also says they are not interpreting the order to mean existing visa holders must pay $100k to enter.

Not even the first time this week that this admin can't keep each other aligned.

I'd follow the words of the proclamation/EO over what the mouthpiece says.

I was not aware that she had made this statement as well. All previous reporting from this morning seemed to report back to a Business Insider article that cited only an "unamed White House official who has been granted anonymity to speak on the issue". I missed that it was a reference to a tweet from her specifically (as opposed to one of the countless other accounts copy/pasting this everywhere).

Note that Leavitt's words are any more enforceable though.

> In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.

Private lawyers don't know any more about this than we do. The administration will do today what the administration decides to do today, not what it previously said it was going to do. At best, the ambiguity will make for a better case that lawyer needs to file eventually. But she's not a mind reader.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com