Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

I strongly oppose the proposed extension of the naturalization period from 5 to 10 years. As a highly skilled migrant who pays significant taxes in the Netherlands, this measure feels unfair and discouraging.

Extending the term sends the wrong signal to international talent: that the country does not value their contributions. Many of us moved here to build careers, pay taxes, and integrate. If, after years of doing so, we are still treated as outsiders, it undermines our trust and commitment. This will push skilled migrants to choose other countries that offer clearer and faster paths to citizenship.

The policy also wrongly lumps all applicants together. Highly educated, tax-paying professionals should not be placed in the same category as those who may arrive under very different circumstances and contribute little economically. A blanket 10-year rule is blunt and punitive.

Instead of extending waiting periods, the Netherlands should look at best practices such as Canada’s points-based system, where education, employment, tax contribution, and integration are rewarded with earlier access to citizenship. Such systems encourage loyalty, long-term investment, and social cohesion.

Extending the term to 10 years risks the opposite: resentment, alienation, and the feeling that “you will never fully belong.” This undermines integration and damages the country’s reputation as a place that welcomes and values talent.

If the government’s concern is preventing abuse, it should target fraud and misuse directly, not penalize all law-abiding, contributing migrants.

In conclusion, this proposal makes no sense from an economic, social, or integration perspective. Skilled migrants who invest in this country should not face additional barriers. I urge the government to reconsider, keep the 5-year path, and design a more differentiated, merit-based system instead of adopting a populist measure that harms the Netherlands in the long run.