Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

The proposal to extend the naturalisation period from five to ten years raises serious concerns. While the memorandum frames this as necessary to prevent misuse, comparative research shows that delaying citizenship undermines integration, reduces naturalisation rates, and imposes socio-economic costs without effectively preventing abuse (OECD 2011; Hangartner et al. 2017).

Naturalisation is not only the crown of integration but also a catalyst for deeper participation. A Swiss study found that immigrants who narrowly obtained citizenship became significantly more socially and politically integrated than those rejected, with earlier access producing stronger effects (Hangartner et al. 2017). The OECD shows that naturalised migrants have higher employment rates, better wages, and stronger civic participation, while long waiting times postpone these benefits and leave people in “in-between” statuses (OECD 2011).

If adopted, the Netherlands would be among the most restrictive EU states. Most members require 5 to 7 years; Germany requires 8, reducible to 7 with integration courses. Only a few require 10, but they maintain broad exceptions for spouses, refugees, and descendants (Vink & Bauböck 2013). A uniform 10-year rule without such exceptions would be unusually strict and risk making the Netherlands less attractive to international students and skilled migrants.

Evidence further shows that naturalisation promotes long-term contributions such as education, stable work, and home ownership (Peters et al. 2021). By doubling the waiting period, these benefits will be delayed for years. Claims of misuse are better addressed through targeted checks, such as fraud controls and language requirements, rather than blanket restrictions that penalise the majority (Goodman 2014).

The removal of exceptions will also disadvantage children and second-generation residents, many of whom grow up in Dutch schools but remain excluded from rights well into adolescence, with exclusion linked to alienation and lower trust in institutions (Huddleston 2013).

From a scientific and comparative perspective, the proposal is counterproductive. It will reduce naturalisation, weaken integration, and impose socio-economic costs. Protecting the integrity of Dutch nationality is better achieved through quality-based requirements than by doubling the residence threshold. I therefore firmly oppose this proposal