New Zealand First leader Winston Peters frames immigration through rhetoric that demands gratitude from newcomers, a framing that researchers say shapes public attitudes toward migrants even among immigrant communities themselves.
Peters gained attention last year when he told immigrants to "show some gratitude" if they arrive "with their ideas, foreign to our country." This language constructs gratitude as a requirement for belonging, positioning immigrants as indebted to their host nation rather than as contributors or equals.
Researchers studying this rhetorical pattern found that such framing influences how both native-born citizens and migrants themselves view immigration. When political leaders invoke gratitude narratives, they establish an implicit hierarchy where immigrants occupy a subordinate social position. This rhetoric functions as what scholars call a "boundary marker"—it defines who truly belongs and who remains perpetually outsider.
The gratitude framing presents several psychological effects. It can reduce support for immigrant rights among the general population by suggesting that migrants have already received something valuable simply by being admitted. Simultaneously, it can internalize shame or obligation among migrants themselves, making them less likely to advocate for their own interests or challenge unfair policies.
Political communication research shows that this particular rhetorical strategy proves effective precisely because it sounds reasonable on the surface. Gratitude appears like a basic social norm rather than a mechanism of control. Yet when applied specifically to immigrants as a group, it functions as what linguists call a "speech act"—it performs social work by establishing and reinforcing hierarchies.
Peters' statements reflect broader patterns in anti-immigration politics globally. Similar gratitude-based rhetoric appears in political campaigns across Europe, North America, and Asia. Leaders use it to mobilize voters who feel economically anxious or culturally threatened, while simultaneously pressuring migrants to remain compliant and non-demanding.
The research underscores how political language about immigration extends beyond simple expression of opinion. Rhetorical choices actively shape