In both cases, the announcements aimed to push permanent residents to take up citizenship, to accept a sharply degraded experience living here, or to leave.
ACT’s policy, after some late revisions or clarifications, amounts to a closing of the permanent resident category for most new applicants. Residents are required to frequently reapply for permission to return to New Zealand if they leave the country; permanent residents do not need to do that. The Party seemed irritated that permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship have not taken it up. Loading a bit of red tape onto residents might encourage them to take up citizenship instead.
Under New Zealand First’s policy, non-citizens would no longer be eligible for superannuation from 2029.
New Zealand, like most western countries, currently conditions superannuation eligibility not on citizenship but on meeting time or contribution requirements. Eligibility here is time-based. A New Zealander who spent his working life in Canada would be eligible for the pension there; a Canadian who has spent his working life in New Zealand is eligible for Super. New Zealand’s current policy is the norm, not the exception.
New Zealand First’s stated intention was to reduce the amount of money spent on non-citizens while encouraging people to take up citizenship.
New Zealand First, and to some extent ACT, seem to see the decision to take up citizenship mainly through a lens of loyalty and commitment. Being reluctant to give up home-country citizenship, in that view, demonstrates a lack of commitment to their adopted country. Or unwillingness to be a “real New Zealander”, as Michael Laws put it on The Platform last week.
So. Why not just take up citizenship?
As of Census 2023, hundreds of thousands of people living in New Zealand were born in countries that either forbid dual citizenship or that impose a fair bit of paperwork for those gaining a second citizenship. The tally includes just over 140,000 people from each of China and India, just over 30,000 from South Korea and about 20,000 from Malaysia – all of which prohibit dual citizenship.
That data does not tell us how many have already become citizens. Many will have. But those who have remained as permanent residents, rather than giving up citizenship abroad, may have very good reason for doing so.
Indeed, they may have decided to move to New Zealand in the first place precisely because New Zealand has been generally friendly to permanent residents.
Permanent residents here can live the same lives as their neighbours, without being forced to give up citizenship of the country they left. And giving up birth country citizenship can be very messy for anyone with family, property, or business interests in that other country.
It’s probably easiest to think about it in reverse.
Imagine that you decided to build a working life in Canada, the US, the UK, or anywhere else.
Think about what you’d be giving up, if your adopted country suddenly required you to give up your New Zealand citizenship and passport.
In a family emergency, could you easily come home to help? Or would you need to get a visa? Would the visa conditions be flexible enough? What if you needed to stay for a year or two? If you and your sister eventually inherit the family home jointly, and it makes the most sense for you to buy out her share before renovating and selling, will the Overseas Investment Office allow it?
Business interests can also become complicated.
Suppose you and your two siblings own equal shares in the family company. You’ve built your life overseas but kept your citizenship. That arrangement can be perfectly fine – until you are required to renounce your New Zealand citizenship. The family company is then considered an ‘overseas person’ under New Zealand’s rules. Purchases of ‘sensitive land’ can suddenly require Overseas Investment Office approval.
Things can easily become very messy, and especially if your siblings cannot afford to buy out your share.
Anyone compelled to give up their birth-country citizenship to take up New Zealand citizenship would be weighing these kinds of issues, tuned to their own circumstances.
China introduces an additional complication. People of rural origins will often be members of rural collective systems whose closest New Zealand equivalent, though it’s far from a perfect analogue, is Whenua Māori. Membership ties households to the land across generations through collective ownership and a voice in administration.
Losing Chinese citizenship happens automatically on taking up another citizenship. And loss of citizenship means automatic extinguishment of those membership rights. For an only child, the family’s membership can also end when their parents die, if the parents were the last eligible members of the contracting household.
A permanent resident’s reluctance to become a citizen does not necessarily mean any lack of commitment to their new home or reluctance to become a “real” New Zealander. They may simply face costs that the New Zealand born have not imagined.
It is hard to see who benefits from a policy strongarming residents into taking up citizenship. People pay the same taxes either way.
New Zealand has done well by being a welcoming place that does not make life unnecessarily hard for its permanent residents. I hope that this year’s election does not break one of the country’s substantial advantages.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was sourced HERE
Under New Zealand First’s policy, non-citizens would no longer be eligible for superannuation from 2029.
New Zealand, like most western countries, currently conditions superannuation eligibility not on citizenship but on meeting time or contribution requirements. Eligibility here is time-based. A New Zealander who spent his working life in Canada would be eligible for the pension there; a Canadian who has spent his working life in New Zealand is eligible for Super. New Zealand’s current policy is the norm, not the exception.
New Zealand First’s stated intention was to reduce the amount of money spent on non-citizens while encouraging people to take up citizenship.
New Zealand First, and to some extent ACT, seem to see the decision to take up citizenship mainly through a lens of loyalty and commitment. Being reluctant to give up home-country citizenship, in that view, demonstrates a lack of commitment to their adopted country. Or unwillingness to be a “real New Zealander”, as Michael Laws put it on The Platform last week.
So. Why not just take up citizenship?
As of Census 2023, hundreds of thousands of people living in New Zealand were born in countries that either forbid dual citizenship or that impose a fair bit of paperwork for those gaining a second citizenship. The tally includes just over 140,000 people from each of China and India, just over 30,000 from South Korea and about 20,000 from Malaysia – all of which prohibit dual citizenship.
That data does not tell us how many have already become citizens. Many will have. But those who have remained as permanent residents, rather than giving up citizenship abroad, may have very good reason for doing so.
Indeed, they may have decided to move to New Zealand in the first place precisely because New Zealand has been generally friendly to permanent residents.
Permanent residents here can live the same lives as their neighbours, without being forced to give up citizenship of the country they left. And giving up birth country citizenship can be very messy for anyone with family, property, or business interests in that other country.
It’s probably easiest to think about it in reverse.
Imagine that you decided to build a working life in Canada, the US, the UK, or anywhere else.
Think about what you’d be giving up, if your adopted country suddenly required you to give up your New Zealand citizenship and passport.
In a family emergency, could you easily come home to help? Or would you need to get a visa? Would the visa conditions be flexible enough? What if you needed to stay for a year or two? If you and your sister eventually inherit the family home jointly, and it makes the most sense for you to buy out her share before renovating and selling, will the Overseas Investment Office allow it?
Business interests can also become complicated.
Suppose you and your two siblings own equal shares in the family company. You’ve built your life overseas but kept your citizenship. That arrangement can be perfectly fine – until you are required to renounce your New Zealand citizenship. The family company is then considered an ‘overseas person’ under New Zealand’s rules. Purchases of ‘sensitive land’ can suddenly require Overseas Investment Office approval.
Things can easily become very messy, and especially if your siblings cannot afford to buy out your share.
Anyone compelled to give up their birth-country citizenship to take up New Zealand citizenship would be weighing these kinds of issues, tuned to their own circumstances.
China introduces an additional complication. People of rural origins will often be members of rural collective systems whose closest New Zealand equivalent, though it’s far from a perfect analogue, is Whenua Māori. Membership ties households to the land across generations through collective ownership and a voice in administration.
Losing Chinese citizenship happens automatically on taking up another citizenship. And loss of citizenship means automatic extinguishment of those membership rights. For an only child, the family’s membership can also end when their parents die, if the parents were the last eligible members of the contracting household.
A permanent resident’s reluctance to become a citizen does not necessarily mean any lack of commitment to their new home or reluctance to become a “real” New Zealander. They may simply face costs that the New Zealand born have not imagined.
It is hard to see who benefits from a policy strongarming residents into taking up citizenship. People pay the same taxes either way.
New Zealand has done well by being a welcoming place that does not make life unnecessarily hard for its permanent residents. I hope that this year’s election does not break one of the country’s substantial advantages.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was sourced HERE
6 comments:
Eric, I believe the ACT Immigration policy is more about ; Immigration is ok for people NZ wants , NOT Immigrants who want NZ.
I listened to your train wreck interview on The Platform and am surprised you have stirred the pot again .
Maybe get a real job ,that assists NZ fiscally.
Yet there is little appetite to come up with alternatives to fix the mess immigration is in.
I agree the policy of NZ First is gobsmacking in its slash-and-burn/one-size-fits-all. they really need to think of the details.
But older people think the country is the same as it was when they were young. It really isn't.
More and more immigration is from countries where people come to run cafes, takeaways, liquor stores. If hospitality is that profitable, why don't Iwi buy up the ones in poor Maori areas and give these entry level jobs to the locals?
Immigrants arrive to get involved in providing fast food. alcohol and nicotine. Then go on to get residency and bring in elderly parents.
I'm shocked at the stories about $2 shops, mobile phone shops, barbers etc with hardly any customers. I've seen it myself, and wondered how can they possibly be getting enough to pay the lease, the person at the counter, the electricity. Word is there's a lot of money laundering going on at these places. The stories of recent immigrants coming in, acquiring businesses that have entry-level, unskilled positions, letting go the locals to replace them with other recent immigrants.
Something is very, very wrong with immigration and people are seeing what is happening to other countries when nothing is done.
While it is clear that there are significant disadvantages to those whose home nations don't allow dual citizenship, what proportion of permanent residents don't fall into this category and why aren't they becoming citizens?
The answer is 50 to 55% of the 1.4 million permanent residents in New Zealand come from countries where dual citizenship is possible. Perhaps the legislation should be specifically targeting this group where there aren't any good reasons not to have New Zealand citizenship.
>"I've ... wondered how can they possibly be getting enough to pay the lease, the person at the counter, the electricity..."
Many Asian immigrants who run small businesses run them as family businesses and do not employ staff. They have no wages bill and so their overheads are much lower.
I remember seeing one such family in Dunedin some years ago running a takeaway. The wife did the cooking, the husband was at the till and dealing with suppliers and customers, a boy of about 15 was delivering orders by pushbike, and Granny was looking after the younger kids and occasionally lending a hand in the kitchen area. If you want to make money neginning with a very modest investment, that's the way to go!
Neither NZF or ACT will have consider the points you make about dual citizenship, so when they finally realise the implications their Immigration policies will either disappear or be watered down considerably.. in the short term, I doubt any of those "citizenship" policies will make it through coalition negotiations in any substantial way.
Why some take up citizenship, why some do not: some do, so that they can work in Australia; some do not because they don't believe in nationalism, swearing ridiculous oaths to the Crown or Treaty. If people are permanent residents and pay taxes, who cares? And maybe immigrants who are permanent residents pay far far more in taxes than they receive back from the government. For example, they may come from countries that don't believe in handouts (remember, many NZ-born fundamentally believe in the Welfare State, it's coded in their DNA).
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.