Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

I am writing to respectfully but firmly oppose the proposal to extend the required period for obtaining Dutch citizenship from five years to ten years.

This change would not only disrupt the personal plans of many residents who have built their lives in the Netherlands with the expectation of applying after five years, but it would also have wider social consequences. The five-year rule has long served as a fair balance. It gives people sufficient time to demonstrate commitment to Dutch society while also offering them the stability and sense of belonging that citizenship provides.
Extending the period to ten years risks weakening integration rather than strengthening it. Citizenship is a crucial step in encouraging newcomers to fully participate in society, both socially and politically. A longer waiting period may discourage people from learning the language, investing in long-term careers, or actively engaging in their communities, as they would feel uncertain about their future in the country.

Furthermore, the Netherlands has always been respected for its openness, inclusiveness, and fairness. By significantly delaying the pathway to citizenship, we risk sending the opposite message that even after many years of contribution, people are still not considered a full part of society. This could create feelings of exclusion and division, which would be hadetrimental to both newcomers and tch society as a whole.

At the very least, I respectfully urge that such a change should not be applied retroactively. Many people have migrated to the Netherlands, planned their education, careers, and family lives, and made sacrifices under the clear understanding that they could apply for citizenship after five years. To suddenly change the rules for those already on this path would be unfair and disruptive. New migrants who arrive with full knowledge of the new requirements may make their decisions accordingly, but those who have already committed their lives here should not be penalized.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and maintain the five-year requirement, which has proven to be fair, effective, and socially beneficial.

Thank you for considering my concerns.