Okay, you got me, I just have to protest. The two situations are entirely different Dave, and you are perpetuating a myth that I associate with the largely ignorant English rugby press.

The overwhelming majority of Pacific Islanders playing rugby in New Zealand were either born here, or moved here as children. Of the current All Blacks side, the most recent immigrant is Sitiveni Sivivatu, who moved to NZ as a teenager (secondary school). All the others were either born here or moved here as children. An illustrative example: the 2001 census identified 115000 people of Samoan ethnicity living in NZ; those born in Samoa number 47k--the rest were all born in NZ. I think the figures would be similar for other Pacific Islands as well.

This is entirely different to English clubs attracting current All Blacks to join them. Those players are all adults, experienced test or provincial players, moving to the UK or France for the money. The PI players in NZ are immigrants or the children of immigrants, people who thought that they and their children would have a better future in NZ. Better education, and greater opportunities--the classic immigrants' experience.

From time-to-time I read this sort of thing in the English rugby press. In it I--perhaps unfairly?--detect an unpleasant element of ignorance breeding a sort of casual racism. Who gave the English rugby scribe the power to decide which among us is an 'import'? What would be the response if I suggested (which I don't) that the players of West Indian descent playing Premiership football were somehow not really British? That they should be playing for Barbados or Guyana, not England? These journos are often the same who talk about 'South Sea Islanders', a dreadfully antiquated term with allusions to ever-happy coconut-eating savages, frisking gaily on the pristine white beaches of a paradise that they, in their charming simplicity, do not realise is such.

So, taking this further, is it because these men are brown that they are treated differently? The most obvious recent All Black 'import' is Greg Rawlinson, a South African, who qualified for the ABs on residency. I have never seen it suggested that the NZRFU raided Jo'burg to get him. Why not? What is the difference? Skin colour is one obvious difference. I realise that is a bold statement, and I do not mean to be inflammatory at all, but this combination of judgement-from-afar and plain incorrect facts seems remarkably persistent. I suspect the Welsh press is better!

Pacific Island migration to New Zealand started in the full-employment days of the 50s and 60s, when NZ needed lots of labour. Those people encouraged family members to emigrate to NZ, they also had families of their own, etc. These people are New Zealanders. They are also Samoans, Tongans, Nuieans, Cook Islanders, Fijians etc--and there is no difficulty, I think you would agree, in these people harmoniously maintaining multiple identities.

Toby

I thought it had taken a long time for someone to protest, although linking me to English rugby journalists may require more than a cup of coffee, even in Pellegrini's :-)

Two comments. Firstly, I think English rugby is being badly damaged by the clubs using money to important talent in its current volumes, as is rugby in the originating countries. Secondly I agree that the economic migration has produced the current situaton, but a lot of that was created by NZ rugby clubs pulling in talent from the Pacific. Its a generation on. So I will agree it is not exactly parallel, but it is ironic.

On reflection, comparing any fully-functioning human to an English rugby journalist is just plain unfair...

The migration to NZ was due to demand from NZ for labour, not rugby clubs looking for players. These people then started playing rugby. This idea that NZ ruby clubs spent the 70s scouring the Pacific for 4 year olds who looked handy with a rugby ball is as false as it is ludicrous.

It is concerning, this latest round of players heading for the UK and France. As the media have pointed out, these guys are not oldies looking for a nice retirement package. Some of these guys are top All Blacks. If this trend continues, then the All Blacks risk being uncompetitive except at World Cup team. International rugby can't afford to lose a top team like that, let alone all the ABs with all their history and prominence in the game. Football manages to have great competitions every two years (the World Cup with the Euro championship or Copa America in between), but rugby doesn't have enough good teams to do that.

I donn't think they spent their time looking for 4 year olds. However a lot of people who were qualified for the Pacific Islands sides ended up in New Zealand.

You are right on the risk to the All Blacks, but I might point out that this has happened before. The great Welsh Sides of the 70's were destroyed by a mass migration to Rugby League. No national team can survive all of its major players leaving like that. Its taken us a couple of decades to recover and we are not there yet. The same could easily happen to the ABs.

I think the real danger is the the English and French clubs want the football model in which The clubs rule and the national sides come second. The Celtic Countries and the Trinations have all gone down the regional franchise route which gives priority to the national team. This is a major conflict (we may have lost the henekin Cup to it) and one where all right thinking people should stand up to the moneybags in the powerful clubs. If we don't then Rugby Union will not grow as a world sport, but shrink.

Yes, exactly. Those clubs are concerned about themselves first and foremost. I would like to think that surely they see a connection between any decline in international rugby and their own fortunes, but they don't really, do they? There might not even be such a connection. So how do the "right thinking people" take a stand? Do their fans refuse to attend their games? It seems unlikely.

Well at one point France and England were talking about breaking up the six nations. Their clubs are very well supported, but I don't think they fully understand the international impact on the game, or the need to avoid hubris. We will see. THe IRB gave them a very nasty shock (I think) over the Heiniken Cup. Also there was a threat from some of the players to strike. Down at the Cardiff-Llanelli match we were all talking about what would happen if the RFU created regional sides - where would the players and fans go?