That someone from somewhere else might lose as a consequence of looking after ourselves is unfortunate, but it hardly racist. Surely the evidence of the last twenty five should inform us that if we can’t look after ourselves, no one is going to do it for us. As a country we have to do what is best for us, because no one else is. To think otherwise is to be an economic cargo cultist. They have their own government and society to look after them. If it isn’t as good as ours that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

And the reason political leaders in a democracy echo these views are because most people in a democracy agree with them. Now, for all I know you may all consider democracy in a nation state to be a bothersome roadblock on the road to economic nirvana. You may all be Brashite technocrats, and firmly believe in the moral imperative to lie to the voters in order to enact an ideological agenda that they might not like but which you in your monopoly on wisdom know is best. But if you believe in democracy then consider this – if John Key was to stand up tomorrow and say it was open slather on immigration, Pierre or Fritz or Wahsui or Rabindra can be recruited from anywhere to do your job and the only standard is the minimum wage his government would not last three weeks let alone three years.

We like to compare ourselves to Scandinavian countries. Yet those countries only have the sort of wealthy, welfare state societies they do have because they are pretty much racially and culturally homogenous, and have been kept that way quite deliberately. The same applies to a slew of other countries – Switzerland, The Netherlands and Italy spring to mind – where the tension of some immigration has led to REAL xenophobia, immediate curtailing of immigration or outright expulsions. Yet no one criticises Sweden or Norway, far from it. As sovereign states they have an absolute right to dictate who can and who cannot settle in their country. And so does New Zealand.

I think there is always a way that we could make an argument that could support this sort of policy (we can make any argument deep down) – but the value judgments required are so foreign to me that I just wouldn’t feel right doing it!

I think I stuck with a loaded term like inferior because I was a bit wound up about the whole thing – I find it quite painful when people sugar coat the idea that one person is worse less than another. However, this isn’t up to the sort of objective standards I aim for – so I’ll definitely try to be more careful.

What can I say – economists are also part human

Well as seen throughout history there are degrees of nationalism,. Xenophobia is just fairly intense nationalism, so one could legitimately be talking about both at the same time, IMHO.

I think inferiority was too much of a broad word – if I had to write it again I would definitely say “value non-New Zealander’s less”.

Fully agree.

Tom, I realise that many people feel like that – and I’m happy for you to directly say it. But I just do not agree that we should value people here more than other people – we are all people ultimately.

Yes, if we let everyone in at once wages would collapse – and I realise that such a policy is ridiculous because it would lead to social problems and infrastructure problems.

However, it does indicate that the only reason our wages remain so high is because we refuse to allow other people, who are willing to work, at a lower wage, into the country. This would improve their lives, it would lead to greater production, and if the whole world did it a lot of people would be a lot better off.

Instead we will keep our borders closed, and just watch the very poor on TV …