The points-based immigration system is not a panacea

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Canada first implemented a points-based immigration system in 1967 (GETTY)

The current debate about immigration is somewhat fraught and in danger of over-simplifying the realities of points-based system (PBS).

A PBS does have some advantages, notably individual applicants are selected according to the objectives set by the country of destination and the system elicits better quality immigration candidates, in a more streamlined process.

There are also disadvantages to a PBS. These include the need for comprehensive and regular data collection for policy evaluation and fine-tuning; applicants are selected solely from observable characteristics, not from unobservable factors like innate ability or attitude; successful applicants may still end up in jobs and at pay levels below their true potential; a point system is unsuitable for providing fast responses to skill shortages in the domestic labour market.

In other words, there is a balance to be struck and a PBS is not a panacea.

Finally, it was Canada (in 1967) which first introduced a points-based system for selecting immigrants. Australia followed in 1988, New Zealand in 1991. So, generically, we should say “Canadian PBS”.

John Salt
Address supplied

The latest polls on the EU suggest that EU migration is becoming the key issue. However, the proponents of Brexit are being over optimistic about the issue which can only result in disillusionment amongst those wishing to leave. This morning on the Today programme I heard a leading Brexiteer giving the impression that on 24 June the UK will be able to close its borders and introduce a points system for migrants. The reality is that until the terms of our withdrawal are negotiated they have no idea what controls they will be able to introduce with regard to the free movement of EU citizens. If we look at the evidence from the current discussions between the EU and the Swiss the EU has made it clear that free movement is non-negotiable. The fact is that, if we want to trade with the EU on favourable terms, we will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens. It is possible that we can be exempt from this by negotiating less favourable terms that might have damaging consequences for our trade with the EU. To suggest otherwise is a false prospectus and there may well be a large and angry part of the electorate as a result. Don't think it will bother those leading the exit campaign who I believe want out at any cost.

Chris Elshaw
Headley Down

The tragic death of Harambe

I object to the tone of the editorial piece “Killing Harambe the gorilla was unfortunate but necessary", (1 June 2016). The animal’s death was wholly unnecessary, and would never have happened had the child’s parents not been so negligent as to fail to notice that he was actually climbing into the animal’s enclosure.

Your editorial writer states that those who argue that the killing of Harambe was not right "show a shameful and flagrant disregard for the superior worth of human life to that our nearest relatives”.

Ah yes, the good old superior-worth-of-human-life argument. Always articulated by a human, obviously, and nobody bothered to ask animals whether they agree that their own lives are inferior to their persecutors. No doubt gorillas would agree humbly that their lives are so low down on the worthiness scale that they can be incarcerated in zoos where accidents can happen that result in their slaughter.

Penny Little
Great Haseley

The trigger happy yanks proved they could kill the innocent gorilla in a nano-second. It doesn't take much superior brain power to first of all shoot a tranquilliser dart into the creature and then if he showed signs of becoming agitated before he fell unconscious, Billy the Kid, on standby there, could have put a hole in his head in the said nano-second. I wonder if the NRA were all revved up and ready to go when David Attenborough met his gorillas?

Bob Lawton
Address supplied

The Zika virus

Ben Chu is correct that the decision to cancel the Rio Olympics should be based on health economics and a cost benefit analysis. The headline to his article suggests that the games should go ahead. The risks of a pandemic should Zika be carried back to other countries with the Aedes aegypti mosquito are significant. The lifelong health, social and economic costs of numerous infants being born with microcephaly are likely greatly to outweigh the financial loss of cancelled or relocated games. Are the Olympic Games so sacrosanct that they should never be cancelled?

Dr Audrey Boucher
Oakley

A silly public announcement

Whilst I understand the current budget pressures on councils including Westminster, I wonder about which is the more dangerous action, turning off the CCTV cameras or announcing that you have done it?

Robin White
Basingstoke, Hampshire