Permanent resident. I'm eligible for citizenship (time-wise), but haven't done that yet for various reasons.

Many countries would not allow a permanent resident to speak out against the government or trash their president or leader.  However, the US is not that way because we treat the permanent residences with the same rights as a citizen.

In fact many countries have separate laws for immigrants who have not been naturalized.   So please tell us again how horrible the US immigration system is?

I feel like I have to have a law degree to be able to talk to you. But here goes:


USC 1227 Deportable aliens

(a) Classes of deportable aliens
Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:
...
(2) Criminal offenses
(B) Controlled substances

(i) Conviction
Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.

(ii) Drug abusers and addicts
Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.


https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim

 No, you just need to understand basic law and the constitution. 

And very good!  You finally found a law!!  Look at the big brain on Nudnik!

Now, back to what you wrote:

We HAVE to - the consequences for us is MUCH higher. If you get caught with an ounce of weed on you (or whatever the limit is that the feds are interested in - I honestly won't know), you get a fine. If I get caught, I get kicked out of the country. I lose my house, my family, millions of dollars of investment, my ability to collect from Social Security that I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into etc. Even the tiniest infraction is a loss-of-everything for immigrants.

The law you posted states: (i) Conviction
Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.

 So, your premise, once again, is bullshit.  1 ounce equals 28 grams.

 And you keep ignoring that permanent residences have protections under the law.  This has been proven over and over ad nauseam.

I fail to see how taxing Americans solves a Chinese Intellectual Property problem. However, let's assume it does for argument's sake. It wasn't the tariffs that caused the investor to withdraw, but the uncertainty that was created the insults that Trump slung against China. If another president else came up with a diplomatic approach that created set of tariffs that would automatically go into effect if IP enforcement levels aren't reached, it would have been fine. You know, normal statesmanship type of thing.

Oh c'mon dude!  Your Chinese investor skipped a $10million deal over an "insult" from Trump!   

It's not a high tax state - it's in the bottom half. It's simply a matter of real estate values. Personal real estate values - nothing to do with the business.

 Uh, do you even understand the correlation between real estate values and taxation??

I thought the ideals of federalism was that the majority of governing happens at the state level? So why is the majority of my taxes going to the federal level?

 You were just complaining about the high taxes of your state, yet now you're twisting it away to a federal tax problem.   Yes, the majority of governing is at the state level, and your state is taxing you accordingly to provide services, and entitlements.  And since your state is taxing at a higher level, you then expect the federal government to step in and subsidize the state in order to equalize your taxes with states that don't squander their income or excessively tax their citizens.

Absolutely. As a business with global income and global investors, I appreciated a leader that understood we lived in a global world.

 Yea, he was quite the economic powerhouse.  It was also awesome how he allowed other countries to tariff our goods while they dumped their goods into our market tariff free.

 https://www.blackenterprise.com/obama-failed-small-business-minority-business-owners/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/incomes-fall-and-poverty-rises-under-obama-census-report/

https://nypost.com/2017/03/30/gdp-growth-under-obama-was-worst-in-decades/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/31/obamas-regulations-in-2016-to-drain-economy-by-2-t/

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/georgementz/barack-obama-biggest-financial-failures/2018/05/24/id/862327/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/obamas-final-economic-record-not-great

Australia has similar policies if you want to look it up. Employee Nominated Direct stream takes 4 to 6 months.

 Odd, I once tried to immigrate to Australia, and without a sponsor (job) and several other onerous requirements, I was turned down.

 And Australia is not kind to illegals.  Much more strenuous requirements than the US.

https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers

EB-1: Extraordinary sciences, arts, athletics and multinational executives/managers. (Basically world champions & elite 1%'rs.)
EB-2: Exceptional sciences, arts, business. Basically your PhD class of applicants.
EB-3: Skilled workers. Effectively Bachelors degree or better.
EB-4: Religious workers, broadcasters, NATO-6, Armed forces
EB-5: Investors

So the only group there that is of significant size is EB-3. It still a minimum wait of 3 years and maximum wait of 11 years. Practically speaking the only way a company would sponsor you for that time is if you can work for them on a temporary visa, which brings up the next point:

 OK, I asked for thee Law, not a website.   Please cite the applicable law.

H1-B backlog. This is the temporary visa that effectively covers you for the EB-3. It has a cap of 65000. Applications open on April 1st every year, and closes on April 7th.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-fiscal-year-fy-2021-cap-season

The cap gets overfilled during that week (has been for years), so then there is a drawing, of which you have either a 21% of 38% chance, depending on the type.

 You're running off on tangents.  I asked for you to cite the applicable laws.

From which country? On what type of visa.

 Let's see, UK, NZ, Germany, Norway, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Philippines and a few others.  Varying visas depending on their unique situations.

I'm saying there's no law for that, so not sure what you're asking. The DV program itself is:
Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Of course there is a law for that.  Do you not understand how laws are created and codified in the US?  You're making a lot of bold statements not backed up with the actual language of the applicable law, and you can't even cite where those laws are found.  This is why much of your conjecture is without merit and simple partisan bashing.

The executive order that suspends it is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-immigrants-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-economic-recovery-following-covid-19-outbreak/

It's complicated because it's a blanket suspend, but a shall-not-apply to 9 sections. But the DV program is not one of those, so it's suspended.

 OK, again, using US law, please show us how this is in defiance of the law?

 Apparently your problem is the President is enforcing the laws on the books, the very laws that were enacted by congress. 

 When BHO was President, in his first term, he had democrat control of both the senate and congress.  It would have been a slam dunk for congress to totally redo immigration and send it to his desk for signature, and forever alter immigration.  But they didn't. Ask yourself "why?"

 Same for Trump's first term.  The republicans had the congress and senate, and Trump asked for comprehensive immigration reform, yet both houses refused to open it or even debate it.   Again, ask yourself "why?"

 The point here is you want to make immigration about the President, but it's not.  The executive enforces the laws created by the legislative, and the executive cannot arbitrarily violate those laws or rewrite them.  If he tried, congress could take it to the courts and adjudicate it.

 President Trump has tried to get congress to do their job on immigration, but they refuse.  So the existing laws stand.  But somehow you think it's his fault?   Seriously?

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/she-got-a-paycheck-protection-loan-her-employees-hate-her-for-it.html

Jamie Black-Lewis felt like she won the lottery after getting two forgivable loans through the Paycheck Protection Program. 

Black-Lewis saw the $177,000 and $43,800 loans, one for each of the spas she owns in Washington state, as a lifeline she could use for payroll and other business expenses.

She’d halted pay for the 35 employees — including herself — at Oasis Medspa & Salon, in Woodinville, and Amai Day Spa, in Bothell, in mid-March, when nonessential businesses in Washington closed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

When Black-Lewis convened a virtual employee meeting to explain her good fortune, she expected jubilation and relief that paychecks would resume in full even though the staff — primarily hourly employees — couldn’t work.

She got a different reaction. 

“It was a firestorm of hatred about the situation,” Black-Lewis said.

The animosity is an unintended consequence of the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package enacted last month.

The law, the CARES Act, offered $349 billion in loans for small businesses struggling as a result of Covid-19. Banks, backstopped by the federal government, can fully forgive the loans under certain conditions.

Among them, the bulk of funds must go toward payroll, salaries must remain intact and employee head count must not decrease. Businesses have until June 30 to rehire laid-off or furloughed workers.

Black-Lewis was trying to meet these rules, especially after her bank reiterated she must continue to pay workers for loan forgiveness.

The anger came from employees who’d determined they’d make more money by collecting unemployment benefits than their normal paychecks.

No, sorry, but that's BS. Anybody who wants to move to my country can do so, and do so in a reasonable amount of time. You just need to be employable.

Since we don't know which country that is, we'll just have to assume you are correct.  But I have my doubts.

There is no legal immigration path for the vast majority of people who want to move to the US. Sure, there are some people win a lottery, but that's a system that benefits the US - the people who enter the lottery has less than 1% chance of winning, so that's not what I would call a valid immigration path. It's also not available to people from the countries that have the most immigrants (by design).

  Care to cite the applicable laws to back up that statement?

It used to be that at least if you have a degree or 12 years experience in an advanced field, you were certain before, but not anymore. That's now yet another lottery system which you have less than 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance, depending on your degree level.

 Again, care to cite some applicable laws here?

So apart from the millionaire-visa (EB visa) there is no sure legal path to immigrate to the US anymore. Well, get married I suppose, or do family based and wait decades. But I mean employment-based.

Not sure about your "decades" argument.  The law says differently.  I have quite a few associates who have immigrated to the US and are now citizens.  There experience is vastly different from what you are claiming.

It's up to Congress to change it, but I have a feeling that if Congress were to pass a law that let's say increase the GC cap by 25%, that Trump would veto it. But that's neither here nor there.

Speculation with no basis in reality.  The bill has to be approved by the house and senate, then sent to the President's desk for approval.  Without know what is in the bill, it's just pure speculation on whether it would be vetoed, or not.

There is no specific provision in the law for suspending the Diversity Lottery program for 2 months. Doing so is artificial, and it's artificial to the point of having zero effect:

• First of all, it's the wrong time of year for the lottery program, it happens in November.
• Even if it was the right time of year, the USCIS is currently closed and don't process anything - much less DV applications.
• Even if the above weren't the case, the program doesn't have a monthly cap, it has a yearly cap. So if you were to suspend let's say applications in May and June, those applications will just be processed from July to December and the same cap for the year reached.

   

Please cite the law you are referring too.

This is pandering, plain and simple.

 Merely a biased opinion on your part, Plain and simple.

No, but my home country has no interest in being a leader on the international stage.

Leadership on the international stage does not require relaxed immigration standards.

But thanks for making my point.  Many (like yourself) complain about US immigration laws, but yet your originating country has even more cumbersome and restrictive laws.   How many times have we heard that "We need to be more like Norway" when in fact, the Norwegian immigration laws are some of the toughest and time consuming in the world.   Even third world countries have more restrictive immigration laws than the US.

The laws on the books are already incredibly restrictive. Adding artificial requirements on top of it serves no further national interest, only political.

 So whose responsibility is it to change the laws that are "incredibly restrictive"? 

 Not sure what you mean by "artificial requirements".  Those supposed artificial requirements are contained right there in the applicable laws, and are there for the executive branch to enforce, as required under law.

 If those laws are indeed "artificial", then who's responsibility is it to amend or change the laws?

Is your son a little devil?

You met him?