Talk:New Zealand nationality law

Restored content

I have restored the content which 121.98.140.36 and User:Jonathon T. Brown have deleted from this article for two reasons:

• They should have consulted other people on this talk page before removing so much of the article's content.
• The content which they deleted was impartial, factual and relevant, citing references from a variety of reliable and respected sources - hence appropriate information to be included in the article.

I have invited the two users to post their own comments on this talk page should they wish to make any fundamental changes to the article so that other people can be given the opportunity to express their own views before such edits take place. Bonus bon (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Renounce citizenship

The commentary on renouncing citizenship uses an example to claim there is a catch-22 type situation. The example used is Singapore and there is a reference to the Singapore ICA website. Reading the website shows the example is incorrect, since the renunciation of the NZ citizenship in order to take up Singapore citizenship would be done at the NZ High Commission in Singapore and not in New Zealand; thus the refusal of the NZ Minister would not occur since that is only possible on the grounds that the person is in New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spmcg (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The example in the article of a NZ citizen (who has no other nationality) trying to obtain Singaporean citizenship is correct. This is because a New Zealand citizen must possess the nationality of another country at the time of renunciation, regardless of whether the renunciation is made in New Zealand or overseas - see Section 15 of the Citizenship Act 1977 [1]. The Minister can refuse the application for renunciation of citizenship on the basis that the NZ citizen is in NZ and/or on the basis that the NZ citizen does not already have another nationality. Bonus bon (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand citizenship by descent

The article suggests that a New Zealand citizenship by descent is required to reclaim their citizenship.

i.e. (a) The following persons born or adopted outside New Zealand qualify to become New Zealand citizens by descent: (b) In order to claim their New Zealand citizenship, these people must register their citizenship by descent at the Citizenship Office.

I believe this is only relevant when proof of citizenship is required, especially registering as an NZ citizen by descent to get a NZ passport.

If a person satisfies the criteria listed, they are automatically a citizen without any need to 'qualify' or 'claim' their citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2F6A:9400:C1C2:B4BD:E50:A96C (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207081041/http://stevenyoung.co.nz/the-chinese-in-new-zealand/Poll-Tax/Helen-Clark.html to http://www.stevenyoung.co.nz/The-Chinese-in-New-Zealand/Poll-Tax/Helen-Clark.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://centralcontent.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/central-content-pdfs/5619320/etd-leaflet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New Zealand nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214082657/http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol10Grantofcitbyreasonofparentacitizenbydesent/$file/Citpol10Grantofcitbyreasonofparentacitizenbydesent.pdf to http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol10Grantofcitbyreasonofparentacitizenbydesent/$file/Citpol10Grantofcitbyreasonofparentacitizenbydesent.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214082700/http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol25Verificationofeligibilityforapplicantsnotyet16yearsofage/$file/Citpol25Verificationofeligibilityforapplicantsnotyet16yearsofage.pdf to http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol25Verificationofeligibilityforapplicantsnotyet16yearsofage/$file/Citpol25Verificationofeligibilityforapplicantsnotyet16yearsofage.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214082704/http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol05Citbyreasonofstatelessness/$file/Citpol05Citbyreasonofstatelessness.pdf to http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol05Citbyreasonofstatelessness/$file/Citpol05Citbyreasonofstatelessness.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214082709/http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol09Grantofcitbyreasonofexceptionalcircumstancesandpublicinterest/$file/Citpol09Grantofcitbyreasonofexceptionalcircumstancesandpublicinterest.pdf to http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Citpol09Grantofcitbyreasonofexceptionalcircumstancesandpublicinterest/$file/Citpol09Grantofcitbyreasonofexceptionalcircumstancesandpublicinterest.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Raraunga Aotearoa

@Nurg: removed "Raraunga Aotearoa in Māori" from the lead of the article with the edit summary "Raraunga does not mean nationality law". Since this has been in the article since it was substantially expanded by @Bonus bon: in August 2011, and New Zealand citizen is a redirect to this article, and the online Māori dictionary I use says Raraunga means citizenship, I think it is worth having a discussion about this. Unfortunately my own understanding of Te Reo is not sufficient for me to comment more substantially than this.-gadfium 21:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Zealand nationality law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Horserice, I'll take up the review for this nomination and present it to you in some time. I hope my feedback will be useful to you and that I get to learn something new in the process. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Horserice, I've completed the review and the article pretty much fulfills the good article criteria. I am going to promote it but do note that there are a few minor issues that need to be looked into, which I have listed in the comments below. Good work on the article in general! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: Thanks for taking the time to review! I've addressed the issues you brought up point by point below. Horserice (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Foreign nationals who were not British subjects had limited property rights and could not own land. They successfully lobbied the government for the ability to naturalise in 1844." This isn't verifiable from its in-line citation. McMillan & Hood 2016 (p. 4.) appears to be the citation that should be used for it. The line should also specify that it was French and German immigrants who lobbied the government and were successful in getting citizenship.

  Added appropriate citation.

• "The head tax was also increased to £100 that year, ... This should specify the year as 1896 for the sake of clarity, since the preceding line mentions both 1888 and 1896.

  Done.

• "New Zealand adopted most of the common code in 1923, except for the provisions on imperial naturalisation, which it later enacted in 1928. This line can sound confusing, since the details of the common code is not elaborated on in the article and since the previous line discusses imperial naturalisation in the context of authorisation. I would suggest re-phrasing the line a bit and including the numbered parts adopted in 1923 and in 1928.

  I just changed that to refer to "this law". I think that should work?

• The italics in the article are not necessary.

  Removed italics.

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension is generally good.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear, concise and understandable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is largely verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all material in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources used are reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The article is comprehensive enough.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has an adequately broad coverage of the topic's major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without significant unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No ongoing content disputes or edit warring present.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyright issues found.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and captions are good.	Pass