The social and economic complexities of New Zealand's relationships with the Pacific Island nations has always been rugby's defence to accusations that the sport here is guilty of player poaching.
The Northern Hemisphere nations for the last 15 years or so have looked at the make-up of the All Blacks, seen a heavy Island influence and called foul play. New Zealand Rugby has been branded predatory - guilty of robbing the best young talent from the emerging nations of Samoa, Fiji and Tonga who, if they could keep it, would be genuine contenders at the World Cup.
It has never been that simple, though. New Zealand is a magnet within the region, luring people with the promise of employment and educational opportunities, to the extent that the 2013 census showed that 7.4 per cent of New Zealand's population considered themselves to be Pacific peoples.
This is a land of economic and social opportunity and New Zealand's rugby landscape is merely a reflection of that - a beneficiary rather than a driver of Pacific immigration. That's how executives, administrators and coaches across New Zealand have made peace with the fact that over the last 30 years or so, the All Blacks have picked 35 players who were born in the Islands. The wider complexities of immigration have given the game here a clear conscience that they haven't been guilty of pillaging the best talent out of the Islands - the likes of Jerry Collins, Jerome Kaino, Olo Brown, Mils Muliaina, Sitiveni Sivivatu and Joe Rokocoko.
But while this argument unquestionably has strong foundations, the make-up of the match day 23 the All Blacks have picked to play Argentina creates a base to legitimately question whether there is a more cynical and deliberate element to player recruitment that is hidden within the wider immigration picture.