A bar in a rough neighbourhood has a few viable options. 

It can have a strict doorman checking every patron to make sure they suit the vibe the bar is trying to create. 

It also can have a hefty bouncer inside the bar, ready to kick out anyone who causes trouble. 

Or it can have neither and just let the mix of patrons sort itself out.  

New Zealand imports a lot of stories about immigration from Europe. Europe is in a worse neighbourhood than we are. And it hasn’t always had doormen minding entry.  

An open door can be perfectly fine, so long as there’s a bouncer ready to kick out anyone who causes trouble. European courts decided instead to kick out the bouncers. A bar in a bad neighbourhood with an open door and no bouncers will attract a mixed clientele.  

At the same time, many European countries’ labour market policies have made it hard for migrants to find legal work and integrate into their communities. So things have not been going well. 

Europe’s story is not New Zealand’s.  

MBIE regularly surveys migrants and Kiwis about how things are going.  

The most recent survey, in 2023, showed that a record high proportion of New Zealanders (72%) say they feel quite or very positive about migrants. 21% were neutral, and 5% had negative views. There has been a significant increase in the proportion of people saying migrants make NZ a better place to live: the proportion rose form 45% in 2017 to 57% in 2023. Over the same period the proportion saying migrants make NZ a worse place to live dropped from 16% to 13%.  

MBIE’s 2024 survey of migrants showed 86% were satisfied with living here; 92% reported feeling welcome in the community they live in; and 71% said New Zealand felt completely or a lot like home. 

Treasury’s recent data shows the foreign-born contributing more than their population share of individual income tax on market income. That is not a full fiscal balance sheet, but it is a strong rebuttal to the claim that migrants are generally a fiscal burden. The strongest tax contribution comes from migrants who achieve residence or permanent residence; temporary work-visa holders look much less like a problem than the rhetoric suggests. 

New Zealand keeps a relatively strict doorman. Tourists are largely waived through, but those coming to work face criminal background and health checks. Lots of people can come in, but those wanting to work face a fair bit of scrutiny.  

New Zealand also has a reasonably vigilant bouncer inside the bar. Some visitors overstay their visas and, if they don’t bother anyone, will not be the highest priority for immigration officials. Immigration New Zealand estimates we have about 2600 overstayers from each of Tonga and China, about 2200 from the US, 1700 from Samoa, 1600 from India, and about 1300 from Great Britain.  

Some of the loudest online anti-immigration voices like to claim that Indians do not follow the rules. The overstayer figures do not fit the story. New Zealand’s known overstayer stock includes more Americans than Indians. And relative to recent arrivals, both rates are tiny.  

The bouncers are not hesitant to kick people out. 

In the 2024–25 fiscal year, just over 1,250 people left after Immigration New Zealand compliance action. About 440 were classed as deported; the rest left voluntarily or self-deported.  

In 2023, the most recent year for which I am able to find complete data, 30 residents and 90 people on temporary visas left voluntarily or were deported after a criminal conviction; 206 people on temporary visas left voluntarily or were deported for other breaches; and 401 people who were here unlawfully were deported or left.  

And prior work by the New Zealand Initiative showed that migrants are far less likely to draw criminal convictions than those born here. 

Last week, the ACT Party released its immigration policy.  

Much of it focuses on beefing up security at the door and inside the bar. Overstayers will be more likely to be kicked out and residents who have been here for decades could become liable for deportation after serious offending.   

Officials would have to run annual reassessments of whether skilled visa categories should be maintained or abolished. It would take careful policy design to avoid imposing substantial red-tape burdens.  

New residence-class migrants will not be eligible for specified income-linked benefits for their first five years here. And those on temporary work visas will have to pay an infrastructure surcharge.  

If the policy helps assuage fears that migrants are dole-bludgers, perhaps fair enough. But migrants already pay their way when it comes to tax. Successive governments have simply chosen not to use taxes and rates paid by migrants to fund necessary infrastructure. Migrants probably should not be blamed for that. 

Hopefully this surcharge would actually fund infrastructure. 

Europe’s policies have not led to good outcomes. New Zealand isn’t Europe. But if stronger doormen and bouncers help maintain broad public consent for letting more good people join and contribute to the fun, without unduly scaring off patrons, they may be worth having. 

To read the article on The Post website, click here.