6 ms·

However controversial Thiel may be, there's no arguing the benefits his citizenship grants NZ. If millions of $$ of investment and hundreds of jobs created don'

However controversial Thiel may be, there's no arguing the benefits his citizenship grants NZ. If millions of $$ of investment and hundreds of jobs created don't qualify him for citizenship, there's a fallacy needing fixing. FYI - the US grants green cards to foreigners who invest $1M in new American businesses, NZ probably has an unwritten law that grants citizenship to those who stimulate it's economy

m12k 9y ago
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?
- flukus 9y ago
  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.
  - censoredforlife 9y ago
    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.
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  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?
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    It only does so temporarily before people revolt.
lukasben 9y ago
It's called foreign investment. And not buyyourselfin investment.
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  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."
- mankash666 9y ago
  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.
  - raleighm 9y ago
    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.
webkike 9y ago
I think this mindset is largely harmful to the indigenous population of New Zealand, who will become increasingly margenalized in their home country.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  I don't think people of New Zealand are marginalized by Peter Thiel.
- smsm42 9y ago
  By Thiel having NZ passport? How does that work? How many indigenous people were consulted before arriving to this conclusion?
- Bakary 9y ago
  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.
  - raleighm 9y ago
    "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?...
    - Bakary 9y ago
      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.
      - raleighm 9y ago
        Got it.
      - 9y ago
raleighm 9y ago
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.)
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Why shouldn't they?
  - raleighm 9y ago
    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.

m12k 9y ago

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?

flukus 9y ago
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.
- censoredforlife 9y ago
  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.
chillingeffect 9y ago
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?
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  It only does so temporarily before people revolt.

lukasben 9y ago

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

nothrabannosir 9y ago
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."
mankash666 9y ago
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.
- raleighm 9y ago
  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.

webkike 9y ago

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

ptaipale 9y ago
I don't think people of New Zealand are marginalized by Peter Thiel.
smsm42 9y ago
By Thiel having NZ passport? How does that work? How many indigenous people were consulted before arriving to this conclusion?
Bakary 9y ago
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.
- raleighm 9y ago
  "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?...
  - Bakary 9y ago
    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.
    - raleighm 9y ago
      Got it.
    - 9y ago

raleighm 9y ago

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.)

CamperBob2 9y ago
Why shouldn't they?
- raleighm 9y ago
  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.