| > Home Secretary Priti Patel added: "I am proud to be launching this new and exciting route as part of our points-based immigration system which puts ability and talent first, not where someone comes from." For this visa route to "put ability and talent first", the policy would have to be designed to look for and accept evidence of those traits in whatever forms are available. But this visa does not place ability and talent first, as most talented people cannot go to Ivy League and equivalent for other reasons, and the visa criteria don't accept other evidence of exceptional talent and ability. I have nothing against great universities (I went to one and have a poor family background), but access to wealth, historical family wealth, and factors such as race and country of birth play a big role statistically in who attends the top few. As for "not where someone comes from", as the article notes the visa is entirely closed to people graduating in the countries of South Asia, Latin America or Africa. Regardless of demonstrable talent, those at the top of the league in the wrong countries don't qualify for this "not where someone comes from" visa. In related news yesterday, an official Home Office report concluded "30 years of racist immigration legislation designed to reduce the UK’s non-white population". https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/29/windrush-sca... Call me cynical, but I think today's announcement is another point on that trend line. |
What you're pointing out — that individuals should be allowed visas based on whatever merit they can make an argument for — should be the obvious thing. Why it gets buried in these layers of sociopoltically dysfunctional nonsense is beyond me.
I would go even further personally in opening up national borders, but I increasingly feel a political anomaly. A strong state in my opinion should afford opportunities for everyone to demonstrate contribution, and only take that away when someone has become a demonstrated risk.