Opinion: In recent weeks, we have heard a lot of (Indian) immigration bashing from New Zealand First, especially following the India New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. This is bizarre given the potential benefits for New Zealand. But that’s a debate for a different day.

The unrest among the immigrant community has received added momentum via the coalition government’s recent promise to introduce a citizenship test for those seeking citizenship by grant. (Note: I received a citizenship by grant.)

The two have been conflated as a coordinated anti-immigrant ploy on the part of the coalition, while Labour and its allies are being portrayed as dedicated to preserving New Zealand’s multi-cultural identify.

This narrative is misleading in, at least, two ways.

First, there is nothing particularly perverse about a citizenship test. Many countries around the world have one. They serve as a substitute for civics and history lessons you would receive if you grew up in that country.

But more importantly, New Zealand is very different from a country like the United States (which also has a citizenship test) in that permanent residents in New Zealand essentially enjoy the same rights as those with citizens.

Permanent residents in New Zealand get to vote and have the same access to social services as citizens. This is not true of the US, where permanent residents, among other things, cannot vote.

The coalition government is not proposing to change this. They are simply saying that if you wish to become a citizen and carry a New Zealand passport with the attending rights and liberties then you need to know something about the history of the country.

If you do not wish to take the test, then you are welcome to remain a permanent resident without a New Zealand passport, but still with most of the same rights and liberties.

Second, Labour is not the liberal guardian of immigration that some think.

Remember that in 2017 Jacinda Ardern came to power with the support of New Zealand First, and Winston Peters was the deputy prime minister for the first term.

It is unlikely that his views have changed dramatically since then. Cutting immigration numbers was a key plank of the 2017 Labour campaign.

During Covid, the Ardern government adopted some of the strictest border controls in the world, aimed disproportionately at countries like China, India and Pakistan. This caused severe difficulties for citizens, residents, migrants, temporary workers and international students.

In a column at the time, I wrote:

In the aftermath of New Zealand banning flights from India, I have been thinking a lot about unconscious bias. The problem with unconscious bias is exactly that; it lurks beneath our consciousness and when pointed out it causes outrage. Me, biased? No way, never.

This is how our Prime Minister responded when asked this question. I am sure she would never consider herself as being biased but unfortunately this is how her decision has been perceived by those at the receiving end.

Countries like France, UK, USA, Canada or Germany are recording many more cases per million than India. Yet those flights are not banned and will not be.

Some have noted that observed numbers from India are high. This is irrelevant. Citizens and residents are being denied fundamental rights on the basis of just a positive PCR test!

Portuguese judges have recently rejected such testing, saying: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.

The problem is that we are continually wary of “the other”; those who don’t look like us; don’t have the same skin colour; don’t speak the same language or worship the same god.”

As I have also pointed out in the past, immigrants generate net benefits for our country. Much of the debate around skilled and non-skilled immigration is a red herring. Different people bring different skills and add value in different ways. Governments typically are not very good at picking winners.

New Zealand also has fairly strict standards for vetting immigrants.

I understand and empathize with arguments around cultural values, norms of honesty or the pressure on infrastructure. I am not opposed to sensible regulation (such as citizenship tests) on some of these issues.

But I do note that the Shane Joneses of the world seem to be particularly exercised about the butter-chicken tsunami and not as much about potential bangers-and-mash or biltong tsunami.

More importantly depending on how the election turns out if New Zealand First can put Labour into government, Chris Hipkins will waste no time in making that phone call to Winston Peters. All the platitudes about multiculturalism will disappear fast in the rear-view mirror.

Immigrants, especially non-white immigrants, should vote for whoever they want, but should not do so under delusions of greater tolerance from one side or the other.

(Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland and the author of “Economics: A Global Introduction”.)