Article content continued

“The points-based system that Canada has, has a lot to recommend it,” said Stephen Miller, a presidential adviser.

“We actually took that and added things.”

More precisely, they subtracted things: People.

This is where it differs from Canada’s system. The reform proposed Wednesday would halve legal immigration to the United States — which already has a far smaller proportion at one million immigrants per year to Canada’s 250,000.

The plan has almost no chance of becoming law in its current form.

It was swiftly opposed by some Republican lawmakers and will inevitably meet resistance from Democrats, which makes the slog to the necessary 60 per cent of Senate votes impossible without major changes.

But it has launched a debate. One immigration scholar calls this necessary for the country.

“I’m surprised that I’m not outraged,” Vivek Wadhwa of Carnegie Mellon University told MSNBC. “I thought it would be another Stephen Bannon special. But it isn’t. It may actually be quite reasonable. Who says that immigration can’t be adapted to the needs of the country?

“Now, we can argue about the number of immigrants. … (But) this is a good debate to be having in America.”

Miller explained how the points system would work. Again mentioning Canada and Australia, he listed some examples: “Does the applicant speak English? Can they support themselves and their families, financially? Do they have a skill that will add to the U.S. economy? Are they being paid a high wage?”