I've been reading your posts on this topic and I have to say that I agree with you. The merits of our current immigration policies, including our points system, are generally overstated and the government does very little to track the success (or failure) of those who do arrive. The Fraser Institute has concluded that the most recent generation of immigrants is costing this country's taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year when calculating social costs paid out less taxes paid by this cohort. Australia's Productivity Commission (Don't you wish we had one of those!) recently examined that country's similar (to our) large-scale immigration program and in a 2016 report exploded some myths, in particular by concluding that large scale immigration doesn't resolve longer-term demographic issues, however may if properly calibrated and administered help to offset shorter-term labor market deficiencies and population trends. It recommended that Australia's system be adjusted to more accurately and fully meet specific labor market needs, de-emphasize family reunification and tighten access to government-funded benefits for non-refugees. In particular, it recommended that in selecting immigrants greater emphasis be placed on age (i.e. youth), demonstrable and useful skills and English-language capabilities. Seems pretty rational to me. We need to do better as well by adjusting our priorities. If Australia can do it, why can't we?
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/report