Until the end of the 1980s, New Zealand’s experience with immigrants from Asia was limited in two ways: Firstly, the New Zealand Asian population was rather homogenous and practically limited to mainland Chinese and Indians, who recruited the two visible Asian communities in the country. Regarding ethnic origin, the 1986 census still divided the New Zealand population into European (2,651,376), New Zealand Maori (295,317), several Pacific Island Polynesian origins (total 94,656), Chinese (19,506), Indian (12,126) and ‘other’ (14,487).1 Secondly, the Asian population was disappearingly small. Since the arrival of the first Chinese and Indians in the 19th century, their proportion to/with the total population had only grown very little, from 0.3 % in 1945, over 0.7 % in 1966 to 1.0 % in 1986.
Changed immigration rules led to a far broader influx of Asian immigrants from 1987 onwards. The fourth Labour government had initiated the first ele mentary recast of immigration policy since 1961. In the 1986 White Paper, which set out the policy of the 1987 Immigration Act, there was no reference to traditional links with Britain – a novelty since the foundation of New Zealand. Its main objective was to ‘select new settlers principally on the strength of their potential personal contribution to the future well-being of New Zealand.’2 In the same year, the Business Immigration Policy (BIP) was introduced. Many Asian immigrants took the opportunity under the general and business categories. In 1991 the newly elected National government substituted the general category with a points system. Under the new 1991 system, the business immigration numbers dropped sharply, and the points system became even more important. 2
Whereas Asian immigrants had comprised under 20 % of the total immigration numbers until 1986, this figure rose to well above 50 % after 1991. The main sources of Asian immigration were no longer China and India, but mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, also Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Japan. The traditional New Zealand conception of who Asian immigrants were, was no longer applicable. The change faced New Zealand academics with a challenge, when they were writing about Asian immigration after 1986. This essay examines the academic discourse about new Asian immigrants in the years 1995 and 1996. It focuses on a selection of three texts from Manying Ip (1995), Ravi Arvind Palat (1996) and Malcolm McKinnon (1996)...
Table of Contents
1. Ethnicity
2. Economic Status
3. Racism
4. Research situation
5. A more precise dialogue
Objectives and Topics
This work examines the academic discourse surrounding new Asian immigrants in New Zealand during the mid-1990s, specifically analyzing how researchers interpreted the socio-economic status and the presence of racist sentiments toward these groups.
- The impact of changing New Zealand immigration policies post-1987.
- The challenge of categorizing diverse Asian immigrant groups under a single "Asian" label.
- Differing academic perspectives on the wealth, skills, and economic roles of new arrivals.
- The relationship between public perception, media narratives, and the emergence of anti-Asian sentiment.
- The methodological limitations and reliance on anecdotal evidence in contemporary migration research.
Excerpt from the Book
Ethnicity
Until 1986 the two ethnic groups were rather homogenous. Indians originated mainly from the province Gujarat on the subcontinent, Chinese from mainland China. This homogeneity allowed to treat the two groups as coherent entities. After 1986 this is not so easy anymore. Ethnic Chinese now come from the ethnic Chinese countries Hong Kong and Taiwan, but also from countries such as Malaysia or Indonesia, where ethnic Chinese only comprise a minority; the same is applicable to ethnic Indians who come from Fiji. Manying Ip yet tries to write a continuous history of ethnic Chinese immigrants from the 19th century until 1995, in which she encounters some problems.
First of all, Ip struggles to determine, how many ethnic Chinese live in New Zealand by 1995. This is due to three reasons: Firstly, the Department of Immigration can only give numbers about how many Residence Visas have been granted, but not how many people actually entered the country with them. Secondly, these statistics only capture the country of origin of the immigrant, not the ethnicity; thus, it does not tell for example the number of ethnic Chinese among immigrants of Malaysian nationality. Thirdly, the commonly used source to determine ethnic origin of the population is the census; but in 1995 the last available census was from 1991, which was utterly outdated, since the actual peak of Asian immigration had only started in 1991.
Summary of Chapters
Ethnicity: This chapter discusses the increasing difficulty of categorizing Asian immigrants due to the diversification of their countries of origin after 1986.
Economic Status: This section explores how different researchers analyze the wealth and professional backgrounds of Asian immigrants, often reaching contradictory conclusions based on the groups they choose to include or exclude.
Racism: This chapter examines the roots of anti-Asian sentiment in New Zealand, arguing that public debate often confuses economic grievances with deeper, long-standing racial prejudices.
Research situation: This part highlights the severe lack of empirical data and comprehensive follow-up studies available to researchers in the mid-1990s, forcing a reliance on speculative assumptions.
A more precise dialogue: This final chapter calls for more rigorous and precise terminology in migration studies to avoid the pitfalls of generalization and the misuse of anecdotal evidence in political and historical discourse.
Keywords
Asian immigrants, New Zealand, migration policy, ethnicity, economic status, racism, points system, academic discourse, social integration, business immigration, anecdotal evidence, census data, demographics, xenophobia, research methodology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work analyzes how academic literature from 1995 and 1996 conceptualized the influx of new Asian immigrants into New Zealand, focusing on issues of identity, economic role, and racism.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the transition from homogenous to diverse immigrant populations, the influence of government immigration policy, the socio-economic impact of immigrants, and the nature of public and academic discourse.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The primary goal is to examine the problems and contradictory analyses presented by scholars like Manying Ip, Ravi Arvind Palat, and Malcolm McKinnon when interpreting migration trends.
Which scientific method is employed?
The author uses a comparative discourse analysis, evaluating selected academic texts to identify inconsistencies, lack of evidence, and the influence of media narratives on scholarly work.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body addresses ethnic classification challenges, the debate over immigrant wealth, the explanation of racist attitudes, and the limited availability of reliable statistical data during the 1990s.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Asian immigrants, New Zealand, migration policy, ethnicity, economic status, and discourse analysis.
Why does the author critique the use of the term "Asian"?
The author argues that "Asian" acts as an imprecise collective label that masks significant diversity in social, economic, and historical backgrounds, leading to an illusory sense of homogeneity.
How does the author evaluate the "anecdotal evidence" used in the discourse?
The author warns that the reliance on anecdotal evidence to characterize immigrants—often for political purposes—is dangerous, as it lacks a firm basis in documentation and empirical research.
- Quote paper
- David Glowsky (Author), 2002, The academic discourse about new Asian immigrants in New Zealand, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/20226
