Does "Merit" Have Merit?

I have long held suspicion of the idea of "merit" in a variety of public policy areas, and especially in regard to immigration. My suspicion comes from the fact that most anti-immigrant policies that raise the idea of merit-based immigration present abstracted, materialistic, and ultimately selfish definitions of merit. But I just came across an idea in Justice in Latin American Theology of Liberation by Ismael García that demonstrates the actual merit of merit-based approaches in public policy.

Not in the context of immigration policy but rather in regard to elements of society worthy of leadership positions, García writes, "They are [...] people with a strong sense of calling and vocation to public service, in particular a sense of serving the poor. Such people deserve the privilege of holding positions of power and prestige. It is within this sphere that the criterion of merit is a valid and relevant criterion of distribution" (155;emphasis added).

García's proposal bases merit on character, not assumed economic benefits to society, although these should accrue if character and morality matter. In regard to immigration, I still believe strongly that the most relevant merit is the virtue of being human, and thus of an ability to claim the basic human right of migration. Like any human right, the right to migration can be forfeited. I do not believe that someone who committed a violent crime in one country should have an unfettered ability to travel to any other country. But even such forfeiture could potentially be overturned with time, repentance, and restitution. And as a compromise, perhaps we should seriously consider a merit-based immigration policy that focuses not on what migrants have produced or could produce but rather how they have contributed and could contribute at a civic level.