Well, since my daughter is also a citizen by descent, and there are probably others out there with similar questions, here's Internal Affairs' page on the matter. Note:
If your child is living in New Zealand and intends to keep living here they might be able to change their citizenship from descent to grant. There are requirements that need to be met for this. They will not need to attend a citizenship ceremony.
If your child is not living in New Zealand at the moment they probably will not be able to get citizenship by grant.
Then there's more info divided into age bands - under 14, 14 - 15, and 16 and over.
ETA: Somebody already mentioned this, I'm sure, but I'm also getting a "Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index" if I ask for more info.
Stewart can correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my interpretation: Could you sit down and share a beer with the guy, or does he show real leadership skills? The two are not mutually exclusive, but they're certainly not the same thing.
If that’s the extent of the time someone’s spent here in the last 3 years, they don’t live here, so why should they be allowed to vote here?
What Ian said. Just because we don't live in NZ, doesn't mean we have no interest in what goes on there. Family, investments, debts, the possibility of moving back.... You may well do a better job of persuading us to come back if we were allowed to take our part in NZ's political life. For me, education is the main impetus to move back, and the rate things are going, if it's left up to you lot who didn't leave, the differences between the education my wee one could receive in NZ and that she'd be subject to here are going to continue shrinking rapidly. Environment, same again. And besides, we're the international "face" of NZ.
Plus: I'm quite ok with not having an electorate vote, and not letting expats vote would make sense if we still had FPP or some other electorate-based system, but so long as we have MMP or something similar with a party vote, I don't see why expats should not be allowed a party vote.
the Korean Peninsula and New Zealand.
But these are two very different climates. But, well, whaddaya know? (I'm assuming that Scion, as a CRI, is a touch more respectable and objective than the other top search results in the Google search you suggested)
Ginseng, is what New Zealand has a special climate for.
Really? How so? It seems to grow mostly in places like Korea, Northeast China, Siberia, and northerly parts of the Americas that have winters far colder than almost all of New Zealand. Although Wikipedia does mention a Vietnamese species - but again, an entirely different climate from anywhere in NZ.
No, it’s more about ambiguity in language.
No, it's not.
For the sake of argument let’s call the early definition a true oath, and a promise that does not call deity to witness, but is still called an oath, a hollow oath.
the attempted redefinition of language as a means to promote atheism.
"True" vs. "hollow" meaning, attemtped redefinition..... Still the etymological fallacy. Language changes, that's a simple historical fact. The meanings of words change as part of that, as can be seen in the multitudes of definitions listed for each word in dictionaries. The faux amis between English and French are a great example of how the definitions of words can evolve over time in sometimes quite wildly different directions. Calling older definitions of words "true" and newer understandings of the meanings of those words "hollow" then muttering about redefinitions as attempts to promote -isms really is just the etymological fallacy. "Oath" no longer means what you would prefer it to mean, it's that simple. To prevail in your debate with Ben you're going to need a stronger argument.
Note how the pro-civil law definitions differ from the early definitions:
Ah, the old etymological fallacy.
Haven’t seen much moon around here of late, either. Maybe a reddish spot through the clouds and smog. But we had a bit of a clearing breeze this afternoon (don’t worry, that’s the sun behind there)…
…leading to more failed attempts to capture the moon. I don’t have the equipment, lens with enough zoom or tripod or suitable stand-in, but I also certainly don’t have the skill. Much more practice needed. Still, with much fiddling I managed to rescue something. And in B&W.
But now that’s shifted substantially, and it could just be a sustained downturn that never stops, as industry shifts to the Third World, until labour prices stabilize.
Or Chinese exports to the West are replaced by domestic consumption, China's low-end, low-margin manufacturing shifts both inland and to Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, et al, The West slowly fades back into its historic role of less-important-than-it-likes-to-think western end of Eurasia, the USA becomes the new UK, the UK (quite possibly minus Scotland) becomes the new France, France becomes the new Netherlands or Spain or something, Spain and Portugal join Italy and Greece (if they haven't already) as The Great Has-Beens. The Americas south of the Rio Grande get their shit together, Africa too, though more slowly, and Canada, Australia and New Zealand dither for a while before eventually deciding who to throw their lot in with. Russia remains just Russia. No repeat of the Great Depression, just a reset to the historic norm.
No new ideas are needed. People have been writing for millenia about how to run countries, it's just that those who actually do the running don't really read those who do the writing, with the exception of writers like Han Feizi - easy writers who were all about seizing power now rather than actually running countries.