I think this mindset is largely harmful to the indigenous population of New Zealand, who will become increasingly margenalized in their home country.

There's no evidence to suggest that Thiel's presence will increase that marginalization, or if Thiel is actually interested in decreasing it in the first place.

"or if Thiel is actually interested in decreasing it in the first place"

So, even if hypothetically there were increased marginalization, it would only matter if it were against Thiel's intention?...

No, I simply mean that not only is there nothing to indicate that Thiel's presence will marginalize anyone, but also that Thiel himself doesn't seem likely to engage in any behavior that would marginalize anyone. Therefore the probability of it happening seems quite low.

Let 1000 people in worth 1,000,000 dollars or let on 1,000,000 people in with 1000 dollars, which group will on average create more jobs?

Look I'd like to take the high road too and say everyone is equal, but we only begin that way.

(Note: I'm from the second group in this mind game)

My tangential comment to your comment would be: Which creates more jobs, 1,000 millionaires, or 1 billionaire. I would say 1000 millionaires would have a much greater chance of creating many more jobs.

At least 1000 immigrant millionaires have spent the million buying a house in Auckland over the past few years. These are houses that would have sold for only, say, 950,000 if those immigrant millionaires hadn't been in the buyers market, so I guess that's created an extra office job or two at the local banks and real estate offices.

An immigrant billionaire might buy a mansion with airfield attached for his armageddon hideout. Or he might grow a business employing immigrant workers on work visas. Some citizens might get jobs in the service sector servicing them.

Got it.

I don't think people of New Zealand are marginalized by Peter Thiel.

By Thiel having NZ passport? How does that work? How many indigenous people were consulted before arriving to this conclusion?

What's "fallacious" about the view that countries shouldn't issue citizenship for capital as an investment vehicle might shares?

(Incidentally, pointing to the mere existence of somewhat analogous programs elsewhere in the attempt to justify the grant literally is fallacious. Inferring an ought from an is.)

Why shouldn't they?

Should they? If yes, what's the argument, and can the conception of "citizenship" it assumes be reconciled with how most people view the meaning of their own citizenship? I suspect there would be significant tension there, but in any case that's not really my point. It's that there's a distinction between fallacy and opposing viewpoint.

It's called foreign investment. And not buyyourselfin investment.

And prostitues are called escorts because they only keep you company on your travels.

The rules are as they are. If someone stimulates your economy, they can get in. Nobody is going to ask why.

I'd be surprised (and amused) if they had refused him entry "because we think you may be doing it for yourself more than for us."

Call it what you want to. There are a few hundred xero employees (kiwis) supporting families, the economy, adding to the technical chops of NZ, ..., because of Theil's investment.

That can't possibly be so bad.

Do you have reason to believe Thiel was the last/only person willing to make that investment?

Edit: To be clear: point is, yes, investment is valuable, but it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no company or employment but-for his investment.

If his monetary support helps to get a figure similar to Trump elected in NZ then he'd have done way more damage than good for the country. Whatever your stance on his politics, his election has done immense damage to the image of the US in the rest of the world.

Edit: Wow, my first negative score comment. Could some of the people silently downvoting please specify whether they think my comment is factually incorrect or non-pertinent?

I back you up. There's more than just a dollar figure to these subjective decisions.

E.g. Seychelles islands grants immunity to misdemeanors for a $2 million fee. But how can a society function with the rule of law suspended for the wealthy?

It only does so temporarily before people revolt.

In NZ the conservative party makes the US democrats look like a far right party. It's hard to see a Trump emerging in a landscape like that.

Untrue - just look at their punitive drug laws for e.g.. Aus and NZ are nanny states. Maybe Thiel's libertarian influence would be good for the country.