I'm just going quote the original article here: "Of those who do choose to move to New Zealand permanently, analysis of the New Zealand General Social Survey show immigrants integrate well. They are less likely to claim a benefit, more likely to be employed, and their children have better education outcomes than native born New Zealanders."

> I live in Singapore now.

This is rich. Singapore's official languages are Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, and English. The official national language is Malay. Let me take a wild guess ... as an immigrant to Singapore, you've been studiously learning Malay, Mandarin and Tamil, and you absolutely do not segregate into a clique of white anglophones in your social life. Good for you, model immigrant that you are. /s

Your ignorance of Singapore is showing here. English is by far the most widely spoken language of that country. it's the language of the education system, of the government, road signs, etc. It's the most widely spoken language at home, and the lingua franca of the country. You might as well berate immigrants to New Zealand for not learning Maori or NZSL.

Thanks, but I have spent a great deal of time in Singapore and know perfectly well what language road signs are in.

> You might as well berate immigrants to New Zealand for not learning Maori or NZSL.

You are comparing the importance of Malay and Mandarin in Singapore to sign language ... I think perhaps it is your ignorance of Singapore's ethnic peoples that is showing here.

> "Of those who do choose to move to New Zealand permanently, analysis of the New Zealand General Social Survey show immigrants integrate well. They are less likely to claim a benefit, more likely to be employed, and their children have better education outcomes than native born New Zealanders."

None of those show integration in a way I recognize as valuable culturally. They would be equally true if we were measuring a segregated expat enclave in a developing nation, but that's simply a factor of leveraging existing power structures.

The native Maoris were pressured into learning the immigrant's English language 100+ years ago. Perhaps you would be happier if that never happened?

It's ironic that you're in Singapore, an openly multi-lingual country. Which groups are using the "wrong" language there?

Why would locals have to learn the migrants' languages, unless they wanted to deal with them or there was money in it?

When people move to a country, they can either assimilate into the country or try to take over the country.

Since that's how most of the new world was settled, if you live here and want things to stay sort of the way they are, you want immigrants to assimilate and learn your language.

If they don't want to learn your language, immigrants should go places where the language they speak is used.

Expecting things to stay the way they are isn't compatible with economic growth. If you want a stagnant place, you should find one which has such restrictions written into its laws or bylaws so you can have more confidence that it'll stay how it is. What else don't you want to change? Young people looking at their smartphones all day instead of having conversations with you? No new slang words? Where are the boundaries of what you expect other people are obliged to do for the benefit of your feeling of familiarity?

Legal immigration is virtually non-existent in China. There goes goes your stagnation theory.

No, your comment was originally why people who live a certain place don't learn the language of the migrants, not the other way around.

This has nothing to do with the point of the original comment, which is about immigrants failing to assimilate. If you move to another country, you should expect to become familiar with both the language and the social mores, and use the social mores in interactions with the people who were already there before you, or get treated poorly by the people who were already there.

Most countries don't want to get colonized again.

If you rely on immigration for economic growth then you aren't really getting economic growth.

But they shouldn't have to.

> not complain that somebody else isn't doing what you want.

No, you're saying that other people are wasting your time by not learning effective ways to communicate. They shouldn't expect you to do anything you've expressed no interest in doing.

> Expecting things to stay the way they are isn't compatible with economic growth

Your points are incoherent and make no sense. Economic growth was huge in the years after WWII, and remained stable for a long time without massive changes. And then you segue into cultural change from economic growth? Give me a break.

If you are an immigrant, you're making a change in your environment because you didn't like the way things were in the place you were moving from. Not learning the language or the customs in the place you're moving to is expecting things to stay the way they are far more than people who stay put in one place.

Basically, if you move, you probably have a good reason for moving. Don't try to transplant the way things were in the place you were to the place you're moving to.

Good point. In my 2 years in NZ, no one invited me to a BBQ, because I am eastern European. I mostly hang out with asian colleagues.

At work though it's kind of cool to have such a multicultural teams (unless you are manager - those positions are still mostly kiwi (I guess more of an age thing, than nepotism)). I guess it's what USA was a century ago.

Perhaps if you reflect on those contradictions, you may gain a more nuanced view.

So I'm hardly a contradiction.

Often, when the next generation have attended school amongst locals, they maintain some of their customs but assimilate further. My maternal grandparents came to Australia by boat. They spoke heavily-accented English at best, after 40 years here. My mother could speak fluently in their native tongue, but speaks predominantly in English, as do all of her children. You wouldn't pick any of us as anything but locals.

It strikes me as odd that you'd consider Auckland to be "disgusting" due to pockets of Indian and Chinese, yet move to Singapore and enjoy the melting pot of cultures there. Some of these things take decades to develop.

Look at the waves arriving in Australia - Europeans, then Asians, Africans, Middle East, etc. With time, each group gradually folds into the mix. The old lady irked by a woman in a burqa would hardly notice a second-generation European speaking without an accent. Yet at every stage, there has been pushback - Asian Invasion! and the like.

...ring very, very, very hollow given the history of how English-speaking peoples arrived in and gained control of the territory. If it was right for those English-speaking settlers to move in as they did, I don't see any grounds for you to condemn Chinese-speaking settlers, or settlers who speak any other language in preference to English.

Houses across the country are expensive, even in little nowhere towns. Land is sometimes cheap but houses aren't. That's not immigrants doing it, it's the builders and their high wages.

Outside of Auckland, I'd say the problem is more to do with a generation of arrogant local kids growing up thinking they're better than a tradesman and they should get a BA in sociology instead.

To pick on a common scapegoat, Chinese citizens can buy a house in New Zealand, so as their economy improves it drives our housing prices up (same level of supply, greater demand), but I can not buy in theirs.

I think it probably only has a small impact on housing prices (a much bigger problem is the political impossibility of any measure that drops housing prices) but I don't think you can say it has none.

I would personally be in favour of introducing a capital gains tax (but, as a renter, I would say that).

As another New Zealander, I could say the same but replacing "Indian and Chinese" with "Maori and Samoan". I still respect that their right to live there is no less than mine.