Fair to whom?

It’s fair to the country as the country is able to make informed admission decisions weighted by the needs of the country, rather than a take-all-comers model.

It’s fair to the applicants as they have a clear set of guidelines as to what they need to do to become eligible for admission. Need to learn English to boost your score (As in Canada)? Cool. That’s tangible and clear. On the other hand America’s system of, roughly speaking, “Indians need not apply” isn’t exactly fair to the applicants.

Note: a points based migration scheme doesn’t preclude for instance refugee admissions, and Canada’s system has a points escape hatch if a province nominates you based on their specific needs too.

> and Canada’s system has a points escape hatch if a province nominates you based on their specific needs too.

Further, private groups can sponsor refugees as well (pledging to support them):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Sponsorship_of_Refugee...

* https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...

More fair than an arbitrary non-points based system Switzerland presumably has?

At least you have some agency in qualifying if there is a clear points based merit system around education.

Less so if it’s things you can’t control (country of origin, ethnicity, etc.)