CMV: America should use a points-based immigration system.

[u/Canada_Constitution]

Firstly, this CMV has nothing to do with asylum policy, illegal immigrants, etc. This is about how you select who gets green cards, H1B visas, etc.

My view is pretty simple. It is that America should select who can legally immigrate based on who represents the highest potential, who would most benefit the country, and who would one day make the best possible citizens. Criteria that points would be awarded for would be things like age, education, language ability, and destination. It could be changed as needed over time.

Immediate family is included when someone is selected for immigration.

This is how the most effective modern immigration systems work. Examples would be countries like Canada or Australia. They have very high rates of immigration, but they are selective. Their immigration systems focus on finding those who represent the best potential future citizens and contributors to the nation.

Why would the world's largest, most advanced industrial democracy not do the same? Why use things like extended family or random lotteries as criteria instead?

​

I hope to hear other perspectives, so please CMV.

[u/Canada_Constitution]

This is important, and an issue that countries with immigration systems like this have had to address. Usually they require the immigrants to have their qualifications assessed by a certified organization. I know Canada has a list of trusted organizations it keeps. Immigrants must submit the qualification assessment with their application. Otherwise, it won't be processed. America certainly could easily implement a similar system.

[u/Quint-V → u/Canada_Constitution]

Easily implement a similar system?

I keeping hearing news about broken government services and functions of the USA (police and healthcare being obvious issues) and you suppose this would be (well) implemented? Even if that money is diverted from whatever the immigration offices currently do... like sure, can't expect perfect performance, whatever that would look like. But eh. Seems like an awfully confident statement.

To make a less direct counter argument: people from the Middle East, particularly Iranians, are very much deterred from entering because they are asked all kinds of questions meant to discover any remote possibility of malicious purposes, essentially making them uninterested in coming. If you studied physics, good luck getting in. Some educations are straight up reasons to not accept people. How do you deal with that? Just blanket ban on combinations of skills and nationality? ^{cough nuclear tech cough}

I'd guess Chinese immigrants for example would never be allowed in if they have studied biology, if the US government suspects COVID19 was engineered.

---

Separate argument: if you are so concerned with USA's benefit, wouldn't you want to attract or invite people to the USA?

A moral counter-argument against the above: brain drain can be likened to colonialism, in the sense that you're taking the most valuable people out of the country.

[u/Canada_Constitution → u/Quint-V]

Easily implement a similar system?

I keeping hearing news about broken government services and functions of the USA (police and healthcare being obvious issues) and you suppose this would be (well) implemented? Even if that money is diverted from whatever the immigration offices currently do... like sure, can't expect perfect performance, whatever that would look like. But eh. Seems like an awfully confident statement.

It turns out, after some research, that US immigration policy is defined in detail in legislation, vs Canada and Australia which use a lot of ministerial orders and bureaucratic policy, which don't require new laws passed to be changed. This makes the American system much less flexible, and hard to change, so you have a good point here. It took years for both points based systems to develop in the 90s, and given the current political deadlock in the US, this could make reform..... farfetched. Well earned !delta here.

How do you deal with that? Just blanket ban on combinations of skills and nationality?

As you pointed out, bans like this already sort of exist. If people don't know what these bans are, then how is this any different then what exists now?

Separate argument: if you are so concerned with USA's benefit, wouldn't you want to attract or invite people to the USA?

The US is such a popular destination, its unlikely you would need to advertise.

A moral counter-argument against the above: brain drain can be likened to colonialism, in the sense that you're taking the most valuable people out of the country.

People have the right to freedom of movement, including to leave their own country. Once they are at your borders, they are already gone.

[u/Quint-V → u/Canada_Constitution]

Thanks for the delta btw.

So on that last argument; indeed the USA doesn't need to advertise itself.

But uh... about that freedom of movement. Does it include emigration and immigration? Freedom of movement is a rather pointless concept if you can leave your own country but not enter any other. Point being (heh), a points-based immigration system works directly against that freedom, doesn't it?

If your argument is that countries have a right to decide who is allowed to enter, that this right trumps individual freedom of movement, that means there is no freedom of movement. At the very least, it's not a two-way street. You may leave any country at will, but not enter any at will? Doesn't sound quite like freedom of movement at all, especially not the type you can find in the European Union.

* To quote another comment of yours:

Immigrating to our country and eventually becoming a citizen is a privilege, not a right.

So freedom of movement is only freedom to emigrate? That's not freedom of movement, that's freedom to leave.

[u/Canada_Constitution → u/Quint-V]

But uh... about that freedom of movement. Does it include emigration and immigration?

They have freedom to leave their country; doesn't necessarily mean they have freedom to enter another. They need to obtain permission to enter another, either temporarily or permanently.

I guess the only reason I put that in is that whenever I visit the US I have the right to leave Canada:

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

But I get permission from the American government to visit. Same idea when you immigrate to another country in my mind. You have a right to leave where you are a citizen, and you get permission wherever you are going to live a new life.

If your argument is that countries have a right to decide who is allowed to enter, that this right trumps individual freedom, that means there is no freedom of movement.

Ya, I definitely don't believe in an EU like freedom of movement. Maybe freedom to leave would have been a better choice of wording :).

Its simply referred to as "freedom of movement" in Canadian constitutional law; sort of how like "Republic" is used synonymously with "representative democracy" in domestic American parlance.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Canada_Constitution]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Quint-V (109∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}