Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

As a highly skilled migrant who has chosen the Netherlands, I support strong integration standards. But extending the residency period for naturalisation and simultaneously raising language requirements risks creating more harm than benefit.

1. Integration vs. delay
Citizenship is what unlocks full civic participation, security, and belonging. Extending timelines primarily delays these outcomes; it doesn’t automatically improve them. If integration is the aim, the most effective levers are accessible, well-funded language/civic education and clear expectations, not a longer queue.


2. Competitiveness and predictability
The Netherlands competes directly with neighbours for global talent. A substantially longer or more uncertain path to citizenship will nudge skilled workers and their families toward countries with clearer, faster routes. That has downstream effects on innovation, tax base, and retention.


3. Fairness for people already here
Please grandfather applicants who have planned their lives around the current framework. Moving the goalposts late in the process creates avoidable instability, especially for families with school-age children or cross-border obligations.


4. Targeted standards over blanket hurdles
If higher language/civic standards are desired, pair them with support and keep a 5-year track for continuously employed HSMs who meet B1 and good-conduct criteria. That rewards contribution without undermining retention.


5. Evidence and transparency
Publish the data and impact assessment that justify these changes: integration outcomes by residency length, comparative EU benchmarks, and projected effects on talent attraction/retention. That would enable an evidence-based discussion instead of a purely symbolic one.