Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

I respectfully urge the government not to apply a blanket extension to people who have already invested years of their lives in the Netherlands—raising families, studying, building careers, contributing taxes and participating in civic life. Any change of this kind should be prospective and include clear transitional protections and targeted exemptions, particularly for highly skilled migrants who are already contributing to the Dutch economy.

1. Fairness and legal certainty
Many residents have planned their lives, careers and family futures based on the existing 5-year rule. Extending the term for them would undermine legitimate expectations, disrupt personal and economic stability, and erode trust in Dutch legal certainty. The law should therefore not apply retroactively. Those who established their main residence before the law’s entry into force should remain eligible under the 5-year requirement.

2. Highly skilled migrants (HSMs)
HSMs are a key part of the Dutch economy and innovation system. The HSM route was deliberately created to attract and retain talent. Extending their waiting period would weaken that policy and reduce the Netherlands’ competitiveness in attracting global talent. HSMs who have lawfully resided for five years and meet integration requirements should continue to have a clear route to nationality.

3. Targeted policy instead of a blanket measure
If the aim is stronger integration, a blanket doubling of the term is a blunt tool. More effective alternatives include targeted increases for specific categories where evidence supports it, or strengthened integration and civic participation requirements, while maintaining the 5-year term for long-term residents and HSMs.

4. Transitional arrangements and clarity
The bill should:
• include a grandfathering clause for those already resident and for pending applicants;
• provide clear rules for individuals close to completing 5 years, so they are not unfairly disadvantaged;
• require an impact assessment (covering labour market, family, IND workload, integration outcomes) and mandate a review within 3–5 years.

5. Practical and policy consequences
Even a prospective-only extension would prolong uncertainty for families, reduce incentives for employers to sponsor talent, and force residents to spend longer in precarious statuses. The government should publish evidence supporting the need for this extension and explain why less intrusive measures would not suffice.