Immigration and vetting

What do we know? (1) Immigration expands the talent pool, with potential economic as well as cultural benefits, (2) the accident of birth is the concrete example of "unfairness" ("fair" and "unfair" are otherwise vague and widely exploited rhetoric by politicians everywhere), (3) beyond some unknown tipping point, immigration gives rise to populist backlash. What to do?  The Economist ("Governments need better ways to manage migration") offers various suggestions.

"No country has a perfect system. But four policies can help maximise the benefits of immigration, minimise its costs and boost public support for it. First, the influx should be orderly and legal as well as humanely handled. ... This is not just because the rule of law matters. It is also because the perception of disorder fuels anti-immigrant sentiment. ...  Migrants should be encouraged to work. They should be helped to fit in. And they should be seen to pay their way." 

Good ideas all. But how do we get from here to there?  Better and more sophisticated vetting? How would we do that? The Economist's four-part plan is unlikely via the leaders we have. It also smacks of "getting to Denmark" fantasies. Do we have the right civil service ethos and staffs to make it work?

The good-ideas people seldom ask the question. Surely, politicizing the civil service was the wrong direction. Unionizing the civil service politicized it. Complaints about service at the DMV and the post office are common. Why would any politician ever even try civil service reform as long as a public sector union is involved?

I would like more migration. But I would also like better vetting.  I have no idea how we would get there from here.