> But Canada’s hospitable attitude is not innate; it is, rather, the product of very hardheaded government policies. Ever since the mid-1960s, the majority of immigrants to the country (about 65 percent in 2015) have been admitted on purely economic grounds, having been evaluated under a nine-point rubric that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at their age, education, job skills, language ability and other attributes that define their potential contribution to the national work force.
The Government of Canada enacted that policy because it's what the people of Canada demanded. The government doesn't make us be welcoming, we make the government be welcoming.
But is your policy particularly welcoming? It’s basically, “you’re welcome here, but only if you speak English and preferably have a college degree.” I took the Canadian points-based immigration test for funsies (it’s online). If Trump rolled out the exact same test here—particularly with the focus on English language proficiency—it would be pilloried by our left as racist, classist, and xenophobic.
I don't want to get into political debates, but this is wrong. Democrats have always pushed for a merit-based points-based immigration for a while now. The 2013 immigration bill contained a merit-based system not unlike Canada's. A points-based system would only be pilloried by your caricature of the left.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP is often quite dishonest. In public, they say things that often sound very reasonable, and hold positions similar to that of the Democrats/left (points-based immigration, protect pre-existing conditions, retain medicare, etc) -- and it helps them win votes. But as we all know, what they actually do (with executive action, bills introduced in Congress, etc) is often the very opposite of what they say.
The 2013 proposal was very different from the Canadian system. First, the points based system would get, at most, less than half of visas, and the merit based category (tier 1) would get half of those. So less than 1/4 of visas would be merit based, versus 65% in Canada. Second, even the merit based category had a family ties component. That component was worth 10 points, twice as much as having a bachelors degree, and the same as having a master’s degree. The other part of the points based system (tier 2) was directed mainly to high-demand, low-skill immigration.
Moreover, the system would not replace the existing family ties based system, but been a large number of additional visas on top of the existing allotment. And it would have granted amnesty on a scale never seen in Canada.
> The fact of the matter is that the GOP is often quite dishonest.
The same can be said of the Democrats. All politicians are dishonest; heck, all human beings are dishonest. The degree to which is a matter of opinion. Any reasonably intelligent person should have no problem constructing a narrative that demonstrates genuine dishonesty on behalf of their ideological enemies. An intellectually honest person can easily demonstrate genuine dishonesty on behalf of both sides.
Through what means did the Canadian public "demand" this policy? How was this public demand measured (in general, and in detail in order to craft the particulars of the policy)?
> But Canada’s hospitable attitude is not innate; it is, rather, the product of very hardheaded government policies. Ever since the mid-1960s, the majority of immigrants to the country (about 65 percent in 2015) have been admitted on purely economic grounds, having been evaluated under a nine-point rubric that ignores their race, religion and ethnicity and instead looks at their age, education, job skills, language ability and other attributes that define their potential contribution to the national work force.