The point system seems to be more transparent and certain, at least in theory. When I was applying for Canadian residence 16 years ago, I knew I collect enough points to be admitted, so I could make plans. The drawback of the system is a possibility of a huge application backlog, which happened in Canada in the 2000s. They had means to reduce the intake of new applications, but they did not use them, perhaps for political reasons. Now they are switching to the pool system, when your application stays in the pool for a year; I am not sure the process of selecting applicants from the pool will be in any way transparent.
In theory, the point system allows a country to select "the best and the brightest". In real life, not everyone succeeds even with a "good" profession, and formal rules bar access to many prospective immigrants. I have known some people who forged their papers to get enough points for professional occupation they never had; now they all are well-established taxpayers. There was a research in Canada about 12 years ago, and it showed that the chances of establishing in the country mostly depend on language skills, level of education and work experience, but not that much on profession. So the "common folk" may benefit more from the lottery system.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-26 09:12 am (UTC)In theory, the point system allows a country to select "the best and the brightest". In real life, not everyone succeeds even with a "good" profession, and formal rules bar access to many prospective immigrants. I have known some people who forged their papers to get enough points for professional occupation they never had; now they all are well-established taxpayers. There was a research in Canada about 12 years ago, and it showed that the chances of establishing in the country mostly depend on language skills, level of education and work experience, but not that much on profession. So the "common folk" may benefit more from the lottery system.