(NEW ZEALAND) U.S. diplomats in Wellington have so far held back from warning New Zealand officials about alleged risks linked to immigration, despite a clear order from President Trump’s administration to press the issue, according to public statements from both governments and a November 21, 2025 diplomatic cable sent from Washington. As of late November 2025, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, known as MFAT, says it has received no formal approach from the United States 🇺🇸 on the subject.
The U.S. directive and its content
The directive, issued by the U.S. State Department under Secretary Marco Rubio, instructed American embassies in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to urge host governments to tighten immigration rules and to regularly talk about what it called “violent crimes associated with people of a migration background.”
Key lines from the cable included:
- Instructing diplomats to “raise U.S. concerns about violent crimes associated with people of a migration background.”
- Asking envoys to seek “host government and stakeholder support to address and reform policies related to migrant crime, defending national sovereignty, and ensuring the safety of local communities.”
Talking points in the diplomatic cable reportedly went further, telling envoys to link large-scale migration with displacement, sexual assault, and the breakdown of law and order. The language reflects President Trump’s hard line on immigration and his push to make crime and border control central themes in dealings with allies.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, similar messaging has appeared in U.S. outreach to several European partners since Trump returned to office.
Wellington’s response and apparent lack of engagement
Despite the directive, MFAT told broadcaster RNZ that “there has been no such engagement” from U.S. diplomats on immigration.
That simple statement:
- Undercuts the intent of the Washington memo.
- Raises questions about whether the U.S. embassy is choosing to tread more carefully in New Zealand than Washington might like.
- Or whether discussions are still being prepared and have not yet reached the ministry.
A senior U.S. State Department official, speaking to New Zealand’s 1News, downplayed fears that Washington was alarmed by current immigration numbers. The official said the issue was not how many migrants New Zealand is taking in right now, noting levels are trending downward, but rather how Wellington talks and thinks about migration in general.
“Our concern in New Zealand is less the actual kind of live migration, but it’s what we see as a growing propensity among liberal democracies in the world to buy into the globalised migration narrative – hook, line, and sinker.”
That phrase, “globalised migration narrative,” hints at a deeper clash of ideas between Washington’s framing and many liberal democracies’ approaches.
Contrasting narratives: U.S. framing vs New Zealand’s approach
The Trump administration has framed immigration largely as a security threat and a test of national control over borders. Many liberal democracies, including New Zealand, emphasize:
- Managed legal migration
- Economic needs
- Humanitarian duties
- Border security, alongside those priorities
The cable’s focus on crime and social breakdown pressures governments that present immigration as a net positive for society.
Political response from New Zealand leadership
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon responded firmly, saying New Zealand’s immigration policy would be decided in Wellington, not Washington.
He stated:
- “New Zealand has an outstanding immigration system. We have good control of our borders. We don’t have problems like I observe in other countries around the world with illegal immigration.”
- He praised migrants’ role in New Zealand life, stressing newcomers help fill jobs and add to the social fabric.
These comments highlight the political sensitivity around appearing to yield to external pressure on immigration policy, which touches on:
- Labour shortages
- Population growth
- Social cohesion
- Rights of refugees and family members
- National identity
Diplomatic balancing and potential reasons for silence
The absence of any approach to MFAT so far suggests U.S. diplomats may be weighing several factors:
- The need to balance instructions from Washington with local realities and the risk of backlash.
- The possibility that presenting talking points about “migrant crime” could trigger public pushback in New Zealand.
- The State Department’s own admission that current migration flows to New Zealand are not the main concern.
Embassy staff often have to judge whether following hardline talking points will advance policy goals or damage bilateral relations.
New Zealand’s immigration system and public information
New Zealand runs a well-established immigration system through Immigration New Zealand, which:
- Sets visa rules
- Runs border checks
- Processes residence and work applications
Official information about visa categories, border controls, and refugee policy is published on the government’s immigration website at Immigration New Zealand.
Luxon’s claim that New Zealand has “good control of our borders” signals his government’s view that the system is working and does not reflect the breakdown described in the U.S. memo.
Broader implications for alliances and public mood
The cable’s attempt to fold New Zealand into a wider Western front against a “globalised migration narrative” shows how the Trump administration seeks to link domestic immigration debates with foreign policy objectives.
By asking embassies to “seek host government and stakeholder support” for reforms tied to migrant crime and national sovereignty, Washington is exporting its internal political message to friendly capitals — a move that could:
- Strain ties with governments that value the alliance but prefer a calmer, data-based discussion on migration.
- Influence public mood in partner countries by framing migration in threat terms.
Community leaders in New Zealand have often emphasized that clear language from political leaders matters in preventing public debate from turning hostile.
Current status and outlook
So far, Luxon has chosen to highlight the benefits of immigration rather than echo the Trump administration’s warnings. His statement that New Zealand “doesn’t have problems” like other countries with illegal immigration aims to set New Zealand apart from the crisis tone coming from Washington.
Whether U.S. diplomats in Wellington will act on the November 21 cable remains an open question. MFAT’s public line that no contact has taken place suggests that, for now, formal pressure has not arrived.
What is already clear:
- New Zealand’s leadership wants to keep control of its own immigration story.
- One of its closest partners is attempting to influence that narrative from afar.
A November 21, 2025 U.S. State Department cable urged embassies to press allies, including New Zealand, on migration linked to crime. MFAT says it received no formal U.S. approach, suggesting embassies may be cautious about following hardline talking points. Washington emphasizes security risks and a “globalised migration narrative,” while New Zealand under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stresses managed migration, economic benefits, and sovereign control of policy. The situation remains under observation with no immediate policy changes.
