Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

I respectfully oppose the proposal to extend the naturalization process from five to ten years. Such a change would not only discourage integration but also weaken the global competitiveness of the country in an increasingly interconnected world.

In today’s global landscape, talent mobility is a cornerstone of innovation, research, and economic growth. Skilled professionals, entrepreneurs, and researchers often choose destinations where they can contribute meaningfully and feel a sense of belonging within a reasonable timeframe. Extending the naturalization period would make the country less attractive to highly qualified individuals, many of whom are essential to sectors facing talent shortages — from healthcare and technology to academia and sustainable development.

Furthermore, global standards among advanced economies favor a five-year or shorter path to citizenship for long-term residents who contribute socially and economically. Moving to ten years would isolate the country from these international norms and create unnecessary barriers for those who already invest their skills, taxes, and families’ futures here.

Citizenship is more than a legal status — it is a commitment to shared values and a sense of belonging that strengthens social cohesion. Delaying this recognition risks alienating skilled residents and their families, diminishing integration and long-term loyalty to the country.

In a world that rewards openness and innovation, policy should focus on attracting and retaining capable, committed people rather than discouraging them. Maintaining the five-year path to naturalization supports economic vitality, global competitiveness, and social unity — all essential to a thriving future.

In summary: Extending naturalization from five to ten years would be counterproductive to both national interest and global realities. The five-year framework strikes the right balance between commitment, integration, and competitiveness — and should be preserved.