Where it breaks apart

• — Legitimacy of the fraud motive — Washington defends the measure as closing a migration loophole related to asylum fraud, while Colombia and Mexico frame it in the context of politically motivated revocations targeting their own nationals, suggesting a broader use of revocation power than the official reason alone.
• — Collective vs individualized treatment — Thailand contrasts its own case-by-case revocation doctrine with Washington's collective approach, which presents the scope of the measure as a proportionate response to a systemic fraud phenomenon.
• — Actual impact on affected individuals — India presents a reassuring perspective by emphasizing the absence of automatic expulsion and the maintenance of ongoing asylum cases, while Nigeria highlights that its nationals are explicitly among those affected, underscoring the direct risk to its diaspora.