Talk:Immigration to New Zealand

Rv POV edits - Immigration to NZ
(originally at User talk:Gadfium)

I don't think that explaining what is proposed in the bill is contentious. It took me a lot of reading to get it clear what was being proposed from 400 pages of document. You can read about it in hansard, that this is what is being proposed, more power to immigration officers, and a reduction of appeal rights to one tribunal. This is viewed generally as more efficient. Please revert the rv POV or explain why it is a POV. &mdash; F red  114  20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit to Immigration to New Zealand says
 * "By reducing the exisiting appeal rights and giving more power to immigration officers, principles of fairness and natural justice could be more easily overridden."
 * Clearly, it is POV to say that the bill is intended to override principles of fairness and natural justice. It would be more reasonable to quote someone influential as saying that, with source, but when the bill receives less than a paragraph it may be better just to stick to the facts and leave the interpretation to a separate article on the bill itself.- gadfium 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply that the bill is intended to override certain priniciples. A bill is a proposed set of laws that are being currently debated. I think it is unfair to state the intention of a bill, because that is very subjective. It is more reasonable to offer insight into what could arise from the bill. That was my intention. I intend that others add their take on what might happen if it was passed, and then once it becomes law alter the text to reflect what finally arises from the debating chamber. &mdash; F red  114  08:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. You still need to quote someone else as saying it, not give your own interpretation. I'm willing to let the rest of your edit stand.- gadfium 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Map
I'm assuming the map does not include Australians arriving/residing in NZ under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement? If so, could this be indicated somehow? — what a crazy random happenstance 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — what a crazy random happenstance 10:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Likely East Polynesian pathway of discovery.
Polynesian waka were apparently not capable of windward sailing. The normal wind flow in the South Pacific is from The Society Island  area directly to the east coast of the North Island. With the wind always aft, sailing waka would have made that trip in 2-3 weeks.It seems unlikely they would have landed directly at Wairau Bar as this is outside the normal flow of winds. There are several big question marks about this. Were the winds in 1280 the same as now? We now know that although the winds normally flow SW this is not always the case-during the 1990s winds flowed in the opposite direction for a while. This reverse flow is related to higher sea and air temperatures -and of course that is the atmospheric condition that prevailed around 1280 from the limited data available at that time. The implication from this is that return journeys from NZ to East Polynesia were quite possible with this reverse wind direction although there is no evidence at all that this actually happened.

Replica polynesian sailing waka have gone from NZ to the Cook Islands in summer but they made extensive use of modern technology such as modern dacron sails and ropes,modern food,medical supplies plus outboard motors. In the 1990s a replica that "sailed" to the Cooks was shown being towed at sea by its modern escort vessel after all the crew got seasick, the wind was on the nose and the voyage fell behind schedule. The crew claimed they had to be towed to make it to the Cooks in time for the planned celebrations.Claudia
 * What we need is not speculation but reliable secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Globalisation of Immigration
How about a section on the globalisation of immigration? People may be interested to know how such major unmandated changes came about?

The immigration policy review in 1986 was part of a much larger agenda for change in New Zealand (Bedford 1996). It was not essentially a change in state policy with a primary focus on one region of the world, as Parr (2000:329) suggests, although clearly through the 1980s and 1990s immigration from countries in Asia was a highly topical issue for both politicians and the public. The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the “infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in the future” (Burke 1986:330)The Globalisation of International Migration in New Zealand: Contribution to a DebateYonk (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Parr (2000) writes “[T]he views of New Zealanders are not conducive to the population of New Zealanders becoming more diversified globally.”

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration to New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410225714/http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E05EABDB-9F88-4B68-9104-20D6D86C07EC/0/MigrationTrends200405.pdf to http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E05EABDB-9F88-4B68-9104-20D6D86C07EC/0/MigrationTrends200405.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)