Beautiful, isolated and expensive: US expats on life in New Zealand
Californian Larry Keim has learned a thing or two in his 20 years living in New Zealand: good dill pickles are hard to come by, understanding kiwi slang will get you far, and if you think you're going to get rich, forget it, 'that ain't gonna happen'.
'But [New Zealand] is rich in so many other things that, at the end of the day, matter more.'
For Americans looking to escape political division in the US or simply wishing for a slower pace of life, New Zealand is often considered an enticing alternative.
Political crises and administration changes in the US regularly ignite waves of American interest in New Zealand – visits to immigration websites skyrocket, property searches soar and online forums fill up with urgent questions about what life is like in the island nation. Billionaires have also looked to use New Zealand as a 'bolthole' far away from the threat of societal turmoil.
Most recently, the relaxing of rules for New Zealand's so-called 'golden visas' to attract wealthy investors has seen a surge in applications from the US, including plenty – according to immigration consultants – driven by a desire to escape president Donald Trump's administration.
So what advice would recent US migrants offer to their compatriots? Some themes emerged: relish the free healthcare, embrace the work culture and natural beauty but brace for high living costs and feelings of isolation.
Sarah Parlow did not arrive on a 'golden visa' but deliberately moved to New Zealand a week before Trump's inauguration in January.
'When I saw the Republican party captured the House, the Senate and the presidency on election night, I just knew it would be disastrous for women's rights, LGBT rights, and the American people in general,' Parlow says. 'I just really wanted to be somewhere else for a while.'
The Auckland-based nurse and life coach says it has been an easy landing. 'It's been a place where I feel I can recalibrate'.
Stats NZ estimates 1,388 Americans migrated to New Zealand in the three months to the end of February, a jump of 1,127 on the same period a year earlier – 537 arrived in February alone, which is believed to be one of the highest monthly totals from the US on record.
However, Amy Armstrong, who moved to New Zealand with her husband, Miles Nolte, and son Beck in 2022, has a warning. 'You should feel pulled to be here,' she said, 'not just pushed to get away from [the US].'
'I think it's really easy coming from a place of feeling desperate in the United States right now, to assume that if you can get to New Zealand, it's this golden parachute,' Nolte says, cautioning that not everything in New Zealand comes easy.
The couple arrived in New Zealand after Armstrong was awarded an Edmund Hillary Fellowship and they have just gained residency. Their move was partly motivated by the US's political climate but mostly driven by a thirst for adventure and love of the outdoors.
In this respect, the country has been generous – the wild spaces are beautiful and accessible and there is a real sense of 'community-mindedness', Armstrong says.
But there have been shocks. The housing can be cold and getting a job is often about who you know, as much as what you know.
'The reality is, most people get jobs [here] based on knowing somebody,' says Nolte – an experienced writer, producer, hunter and fisher. 'I have been a little shocked at how cloistered the market … and the connections have been.'
For Wellington-based video editor Sam, who wished to use only his first name, the workplace culture was a surprising discovery – one he relishes for the lengthy holiday periods and better work-life balance but which also required steep learning curves.
'In New Zealand, the relationships come first … if you're in a position of leadership, you have to develop that relationship or it won't work out,' says Sam.
Sam and his wife moved to New Zealand in 2016 after falling in love with its natural beauty three years earlier. He is particularly struck by how access to free healthcare 'gives you more freedom and latitude to try new things'.
'That made me realise, as an American, how much of your life and the decisions you make are tied to your ability to get healthcare,' Sam said.
Some Americans warned would-be migrants that the cost of living is high in New Zealand compared with the US, and said they had sometimes struggled to form friendships with locals. Meanwhile, the distance between New Zealand and the US can lead to loneliness.
'Sometimes it can feel very isolating [if] you're just here on your own and your family's 3,000 miles away,' says Monique, who wished to give only her first name, and who moved to New Zealand in 2006.
Yet, not one regretted their choice to move, nor had any pressing desire to return to the US.
'I have a life here that I wouldn't be able to have in California – I can afford to keep myself healthy [and] don't have to pay for my prescriptions,' says Debbie, a retiree who has called New Zealand home since 2005. 'New Zealand is a beautiful country and I am proud to be part of it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
43 minutes ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Stop panicking about asylum hotels, Sir Keir. I've got the perfect solution
Three years ago, Ron DeSantis – the Republican governor of Florida – decided that he was sick of his state being deluged by asylum seekers. And he was even more sick of being lectured by rich liberals who were always loudly supportive of mass immigration, while living in neighbourhoods that were largely untouched by its downsides. So he came up with a little idea. He assembled a group of asylum seekers who'd arrived in Florida, and kindly arranged for them all to receive one-way flights to Martha's Vineyard: a fashionable part of New England that is home to lots of rich liberal celebrities. You may be astonished to learn that, in liberal circles, Mr DeSantis's plan was met with horrified fury. Not, of course, because these liberals don't like asylum seekers, and were appalled by the prospect of having to share their beautiful neighbourhoods with them. It was merely because they felt it was callous and inhumane of Mr DeSantis to use vulnerable people as pawns in a cynical political game. That was all. Important to make that clear. Anyway, there's a reason I bring this story up. Here in Britain, our Labour Government has got itself into a bit of bother. Earlier this month, it pledged to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029. But now David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, has said: 'I don't think it will be achieved, frankly.' Luckily for Labour, I'm here to save the day. As we know, asylum hotels are, for some mysterious reason, almost always found in areas that are home to people who are not very well-off, and unhappy about mass immigration. Yet strangely few are found in areas that are home to people who are well-off, and love mass immigration. So why not take a leaf from Mr DeSantis's book? Remove all the asylum seekers from their hotels – and instead put them up in places that are full of rich liberals. Branches of Soho House, say, or BBC headquarters. Admittedly this might take some time to arrange. So, for this weekend at least, the Government could just bus them all into the Glastonbury festival. A perfect solution that will please everyone. It's just a wonder that Labour didn't think of it sooner. Nigel versus the Nats I don't know how many Telegraph readers also take The National, the newspaper that, in the proud words of its masthead, 'supports an independent Scotland'. But for those who weren't lucky enough to get hold of yesterday's extraordinary edition, here's what you missed. On its front page were two stories. And both were about Nigel Farage's Reform UK. The main story was headlined: 'BBC Called Out Over Question Time Slot for Reform Man.' And its opening sentence was: 'The BBC's decision to platform Reform UK in Scotland when the Right-wing party has no elected members has been branded 'bizarre'.' The other story, however, was headed: 'Poll Suggests Farage's Party Would Gain First Scottish MPs.' This was followed by the alarmed subhead: 'Our analysis finds Reform would also take second place in 16 constituencies and third in a staggering 37.' So, to summarise: Reform is an overhyped electoral irrelevance that doesn't deserve any airtime in Scotland, because it's so pathetically unpopular there. Yet it's also an existential threat to everything Scotland holds dear, because it's so terrifyingly popular there. This presents us with a profound philosophical conundrum. Because it would seem that Mr Farage has created the political equivalent of Schrödinger's cat. A party that's simultaneously both dead and alive. He's achieved some remarkable things in his career, but this surely trumps the lot.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
