Verlenging naturalisatietermijnen

Reactie

Vraag1

I respectfully oppose the proposal to extend the naturalization period from five to ten years. Such a measure would hinder integration and undermine the nation’s competitiveness in an increasingly interconnected world.

In today’s global environment, talent mobility drives innovation, research, and economic development. Highly skilled professionals, entrepreneurs, and researchers are drawn to countries that enable meaningful contribution and a sense of belonging within a reasonable timeframe. Doubling the naturalization period would reduce the country’s attractiveness to such individuals, many of whom are vital to sectors facing talent shortages—including healthcare, technology, academia, and sustainable industries.

Most advanced economies maintain a five-year or shorter path to citizenship for long-term residents who contribute economically and socially. Extending the period to ten years would distance the nation from these global standards and introduce unnecessary barriers for individuals already investing their expertise, taxes, and family futures here.

Citizenship is more than a legal designation; it is a mutual commitment to shared values that strengthens social cohesion and national identity. Delaying this recognition risks alienating skilled residents and their families, reducing integration and weakening long-term attachment to the country.

In an era defined by openness and competition for talent, policy should prioritize the attraction and retention of capable, dedicated individuals rather than deterring them. Preserving the five-year naturalization framework supports economic growth, innovation, and social unity—core foundations of a prosperous and resilient society.

Extending the process to ten years would therefore be counterproductive to both national interests and global realities. The current five-year standard offers a well-balanced approach to commitment, integration, and competitiveness, and should be maintained.