Two different arguements that should be debated seperately.
The exodus to the North is on based on the clubs spending power. This is a series of individual moves, made by the clubs, to get the talent in and increase revenue. This is not a move by the national rugby union's to improve their own game and enhance the international setup. This is just business.
New Zealands island strategy is a little more coordinated. The goal being to get the best talent from the other island nations to represent your own. Of the current squad, Collins, Sivivatu, Muliaina, Rokocoko, So'oialo, Lauaki, Masoe and Toeava were born on the islands. This is some pool of talent.
However this is not something exclusive to to NZ, and there is little consistency in most arguements. England have no problem playing South Africans (and given the warblings over quota's you may find a lot of South African talent will start to declare for England), France had a history of taking talent from African Nations (Betsen and Nyanga).
The main issue is that NZ have access to the greatest pool of talent, hence the objections.
Personally I think it would be great to see the likes of Collins and Sivivatu represent their birth nation, but on the other side, I know if Ireland had a bunch of rugby mad Islands off our coast, and a huge amount of the population wanted to play for us. I sure as **** wouldnt object to letting them play.
[/b]