bcworld

No, I'd use the two terms interchangeably, not sure why you'd assume otherwise.

So the article says:

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Do all governments not have social aims then?

bcworld

From the horse's mouth nonetheless, surely this one can be put to bed now!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

OK, ignoring all the claims and counter claims as its going to go nowhere.
At its most basic you two don't believe that the Labour Party is capable of anything, including attempting to change the electorate, in its bid to stay in power.
I believe they are.... and I say that as someone from central Manchester, a Labour heartland, who voted Labour for over 25 years.

We will have to agree to disagree about that, because nothing you say will dissuade me from that belief.

Cape Blue

It's not logical and has no basis in fact (even Neather seems to indicate that), so no, I don't think the Labour Party planned large scale immigration to ensure it got re-elected.

That doesn't mean I wasn't unhappy with some of their polices.

bcworld

Whether they're capable of it isn't the question though is it? It's whether they did...and in the article above the chief witness for the prosecution seems to be saying they've been taken out of context.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

**** me, what a shock.

bcworld

Do you reckon they've kidnapped his kids and are holding em ransom?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

As I said.. you don't believe they did it. I do. No middle ground available.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

As I said.. you don't believe they did it. I do. No middle ground available.

bcworld

Oh well then, back to the ten pound poms...

Bellasmum

Very interesting discussion.

By tradition Kiwi parents have always encouraged their children to travel and see the world but the vast majority do return home.

All of my immediate family have lived and worked overseas but at some point we have been included in the Kiwi' leaving home. Fact is we all came back. In fact I left four times for much longer that 1 year but I also came back four times.

Another factor you need to consider is that a lot of immigrants use NZ as a back door to life in Aus.

It would be interesting to know just what % of those flocking to Aus from NZ permantly are born and breed Kiwi's.

bcworld

I would think that would be a very large percentage.

The 2006 census shows for country of birth NZ: 476,719

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...untry_of_birth

Bo-Jangles

How so? You say this like so many do it on purpose. I guess someone very desperate might do, but this would require one heck of a lot foresight and forward planning with folks needing to do 5 years in NZ before being entitled to Kiwi Citizenship.

It can take anything upto two years from conception of the idea of migration, until the physical arrival in NZ from a.n.other country as a PR. Add to this the requisite five years of residence and another 9 months or so for processing of citizenship, people would need to be planning eight to ten years in advance of a move through the 'back door' to OZ.

We've seen lots of people through this board over the years that land up in Oz by default because of a mistake, not settling in NZ, hating NZ or simply not being satisfied that they achieved the lifestyle they assumed or were led to believe was possible in NZ. I can't say that I ever came across anyone who deliberately set out to use NZ as a stepping stone to get through the back of the wardrobe to Narnia.

bcworld

...AND to go through all of this to be granted a temporary Aus visa with its associated restrictions, and face another visa application once in Australia should you hope to be granted PR.

AH30

The insurance organisations also have their own insurance against these types of disasters, hence the international insurers taking much of the construction bill.