Aftermath of the far right or the future?

Trying to rush it through quickly to gain votes for the October elections? That’s what it sounds like. But is that the case!? Members of Parliament Boomsma and Rajkowski have submitted a motion (36704-68) to change the condition for naturalization from 5 years to 10 years. And also to change the integration language requirement from A2 to B1. With a request to submit this to the Dutch House of Representatives/Parliament before 01 October 2025.

10 years is the maximum allowed within the EU. As a country, we have previously signed that we won’t require more than that. But apparently the current politicians do want the maximum. After all, that looks good for their (extreme) right-wing voters which they would like to attract. This has nothing to do with common sense or scientific policy, which is ignored here. Scientific research (also during previous governments) showed that this can even be counterproductive. Note that the work for this change has already started earlier.

The fact that some politicians want B1 for naturalization instead of the current A2 has been a political wish for some time. This has been the case since Rutte III (2017). Due to the cost and research into effectiveness, this remained on the table during previous governments. Finance/Justice currently estimates this at an additional 15 million per year. This change was also an objective in the last coalition agreement. For this, the “Naturalization Test Decree” must be changed and that is not going to happen that quickly. I wrote this before, but this is what the government itself said about it in October 2024:

“The increase of the language requirement for naturalisation to B1 requires an amendment of a general measure of the Kingdom administration. This means that the other countries of the Kingdom are consulted and must agree to the amendment in the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom. This amendment process (up to the submission of the documents to the Council of State for advice) has a lead time of approximately one year. The process for, among other things, the purchase of the exams will be initiated as soon as possible.” (24 Oct 2024).

So B1 is probably not a proposal that can be decided before the elections in October 2025. And what about 10 years? That is theoretically possible, but in practice it seems unfeasible to me. Don’t forget that it will only then come to the House of Representatives and then the entire process has to go through. With hopefully some critical questions in the process, perhaps looking back at scientific research, or new research? And then everyone has to agree. But yes, with current right politics? Good question!

But is this really about immigration and naturalization in general? Or is this about asylum seekers who are in the crosshairs worldwide? The title gives it away:

“36 704 Wijziging van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 en de Algemene wet bestuursrecht in verband met maatregelen om de asielketen te ontlasten en de instroom van asielzoekers te verminderen (Asielnoodmaatregelenwet)”

“een wijziging voor te leggen aan de Tweede Kamer van de Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap
die het mogelijk maakt dat de termijn voor naturalisatie wordt verlengd naar tien
jaar, waarbij ook personen na tien jaar legaal verblijf in Nederland op grond van
een vergunning voor asiel voor bepaalde tijd in aanmerking komen voor naturalisatie,
indien ze aan de (andere) voorwaarden voldoen”

Why did this have to be brought forward now??? Is it to attract votes or is it to ensure that the possible changes do not hit asylum seekers too hard, or???

Meanwhile, regular immigrants are faced with the prospect of waiting 10 years, for many another/extra 5 years. Why is that necessary? As one of the few civilized countries in the world, we are going back in time. Most countries use 5 or even 4 years. Integration may not work in the Netherlands because it is a one-sided expectation. If integration is used as a supporting measure again instead of a threshold, then you might get a better society. And whether it is 5, 7 or 10 years… research has shown that this has little effect on integration and a social society of all citizens. Where foreigners are also seen as not-so-foreign-citizens. Where does the problem of integration really lie?

Advice Naturalisation
If you soon meet the current requirements of 5 years and A2, make an appointment now at your municipality for your naturalization application. Make sure you get an appointment for the day, or the day after, that you have been here for 5 years. The legal requirements will then be considered as in place on the application date. So, if there is a change in the law later, after your application, then you are reasonably safe. It is theoretically possible to impose requirements retrospectively with a change in the law, but that is very very very very unlikely. By the way, this only concerns regular naturalization applications.

When will these changes to the law take place?
That is impossible to predict. Probably not before the elections. Possibly. We cannot predict that yet. With a bit of luck we will soon have new good and pleasant politics at the top. Then perhaps these changes will be forgotten, rejected. We just don’t know. I suggest you encourage good people to vote.

The Application
Please note that some municipalities first want an assessment appointment with you. This is outside the law. Despite the fact that some municipalities ‘require’ this, this is not according to the law. Make a possible 1st assessment appointment as soon as possible, even if you have not yet been in the country for 5 years.

By law… The government can only refuse your application for naturalisation if you do not pay the application fee. The government may only assess the content of your application after the application. If a document is still missing, you will normally be given the opportunity to submit it. But be careful, on the date of application you must meet the basic conditions: valid residence permit, 5 years of legal residence, integration. The municipal officer can advise you not to submit the application because it could be rejected. The (financial) risk of doing it anyway is then yours. So prepare yourself well if something is not (yet) completely in order. In that case, first legal advice may also be wise. But if the change of law is soon, then in some cases it may be a good idea to start the application anyway.

---