9 ms·
Why would a lottery be used at all for picking “winners” for immigration? On multiple levels that seems unfair and wrong.
by remarkEon 8y ago
Why would a lottery be used at all for picking “winners” for immigration? On multiple levels that seems unfair and wrong.
- notyourwork 8y agoWhy is that wrong? How do you propose to select to pick who gets in and who doesn’t?
- maxk42 8y agoVirtue.
- sleet 8y ago"The Liberals introduced a lottery in 2017 in an effort to make the system fairer – previously, applications were accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The program receives roughly 100,000 applications each year and selects 10,000"
- nos4A2 8y agoIts still better than using the place of birth as a determining factor.
- zouhair 8y agoYou can still use that in concomitance with the lottery.
- neom 8y agoI would imagine it's because there are a limited number of people that Canadians will allow to immigrate into their county?
- patmorgan23 8y agoYep Canada has pretty tight immigration policy.
- rdlecler1 8y agoUnfair to whom? That is going to be relative.
- shados 8y agoto those who lose the lottery, duh!
- cosmojg 8y agoWhile it does seem wrong and silly, isn't a completely random lottery explicitly fair? No one involved is privileged by any metric (unless you believe in supernatural luck).
- stormbrew 8y agoIf they were actually accepting all applications that meet the criteria, that would make first come first serve more fair, but there are quotas so they have to reject N-1 applications regardless of their application. Lottery systems are generally considered fairer than first come first serve because they don't advantage people who apply early. Especially in an immigration-related process where circumstances are likely to dictate when you can apply, not everyone will have an opportunity to 'get in early'. If you have a way to make the process simultaneously non-random, fair, and not have a cap (which I personally would probably be fine with eliminating but is presumably a non-starter for various political reasons), I'm sure some people would love to hear about it.
- Trundle 8y agoSure. Attach a price tag to it.
- stormbrew 8y agoAh yes, because "the people with the most money get in" is the absolute definition of fair for sure.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ihsw2 8y agoSure, just make the process much more restrictive. The idea is to take in the best, not help the most vulnerable.
- tialaramex 8y agoThe other options are to let everybody in or to suppose you already know the right criteria for who'd be the "best" immigrants. Hint: you don't. Genuinely random selection averts loads of really nasty problems in a system where you need to pick things even though humans tend to be sure some other approach would work better.
- mistermann 8y ago> The other options are to let everybody in or to suppose you already know the right criteria for who'd be the "best" immigrants. Hint: you don't. On an individual basis of course not, but you don't think in the aggregate better candidates can be chosen?
- forapurpose 8y agoNo. If the information is not about the individual, then it isn't useful in evaluating the individual. I know that sounds tautological, but it seems that obvious.
- mistermann 8y ago> No. If the information is not about the individual, then it isn't useful in evaluating the individual. But I very clearly was asking about the aggregate, in fact I specifically said it isn't useful on an individual basis. In the propaganda game, not showing one's cards is one of the first things to learn. > I know that sounds tautological Learning the meaning of words is pretty high on the list as well. Also humility. :)
- forapurpose 8y agoIt's worth noting that the parent admits to be playing a "propaganda game" on HN.