Key Legal Issues 

  • Proposal to extend naturalisation from five to ten years.
  • End of naturalisation abroad for spouses and former Dutch nationals.
  • Abolition or restriction of the option procedure for regaining citizenship. 
  • Inconsistency with the emerging European principle of Contributive Belonging, favouring inclusion over exclusion. 

Executive Summary

In September 2025, the caretaker Dutch government introduced a bill to amend the Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (RWN), extending the standard residence requirement for naturalisation from five to ten years and narrowing eligibility for naturalisation and recovery of Dutch nationality abroad. The bill also sidelines the long-pending 2016 dual citizenship reform. According to immigration experts such as Hermie de Voer of Everaert Advocaten, the proposal politicises nationality law and risks undermining social integration. Legal analysis suggests the reform conflicts with the EU’s evolving Doctrine of Contributive Belonging, which recognises that citizenship should reflect demonstrable social and economic participation rather than mere length of residence. 

Current Legal Framework: Dutch Citizenship under the RWN 

Under the current Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap, a foreign national may apply for Dutch citizenship by naturalisation after five years of lawful residence in the Netherlands. The main conditions include: 

The option procedure provides a simplified route for former Dutch nationals and certain residents with special ties, generally exempting them from the renunciation requirement. (IND – Option procedure) 

Proposed 2025 Reform: Key Changes 

Ten-Year Residence Rule 

The draft amends Article 8(1)(c) of the RWN, replacing “five” with “ten” years as the general residence threshold for naturalisation. 

“De vreemdeling die ten minste tien jaren onmiddellijk voorafgaande aan het verzoek in Nederland toelating en hoofdverblijf heeft gehad...” 
(Translation: “The foreigner who has had lawful admission and principal residence in the Netherlands for at least ten consecutive years immediately preceding the request.”) 

The Ministry of Justice claims this extension ensures “a stronger and more sustainable bond with the Netherlands.” (DutchNews.nl – Dutch passport: 10 years naturalisation) 

Restriction of Naturalisation Abroad 

Under the proposal, spouses of Dutch citizens and former Dutch nationals may no longer naturalise or re-obtain citizenship from abroad. They must establish residence in the Netherlands before applying. (Everaert Advocaten – Dutch naturalisation period may increase to 10 years) 

Option Procedure & Dual Citizenship 

The bill abolishes the current option route abroad for those who lost Dutch nationality involuntarily, such as long-term expatriates, and removes the ability to retain multiple nationalities through this route. The proposal thus halts progress toward the 2016 modernisation bill, which would have allowed dual nationality in specific circumstances. (Mynta Legal – Residency requirements for Dutch naturalisation from 5 to 10 years) 

Integration Threshold 

The reform aligns with the Civic Integration Act 2021 (Wet inburgering 2021), raising language requirements from A2 to B1, further tightening access. 

Legal and Political Context 

The measure implements a point from the current coalition agreement, reflecting electoral pledges to “safeguard the value of Dutch nationality.” (Mynta Legal – Coalition Agreement Summary) 
However, a similar attempt in 2017 to extend naturalisation to seven years was rejected by the Eerste Kamer (Senate) on grounds of proportionality and integration. (Kroes Advocaten – First Chamber rejects seven-year naturalisation bill) 

The new bill is undergoing public consultation before review by the Raad van State (Council of State) and parliamentary debate in the Tweede Kamer. (Dutch Parliament – Consultation procedures for legislative amendments) 

Reaction

“Our Dutch caretaker government has introduced an embarrassing bill that proposes extensive changes to the Dutch Citizenship Act. Naturalisation after 10 years instead of 5. Naturalisation for spouses of Dutch citizens and former Dutch nationals no longer possible from abroad. No new option ruling abroad to reobtain Dutch citizenship when it is lost unknowingly and unwillingly. Just to name a few. 

And why? Does this bill solve any problem? Or is it just because in the coalition agreement the 10-year term is stated and national elections are around the corner? Supposedly this helps integration. I believe the opposite is true and naturalisation stimulates integration. Also, no word about the bill to modernize Dutch citizenship law that has been pending since 2016 and that introduces dual citizenship which also, in its own way, sparks integration.” 
— Hermie de Voer, Partner, Everaert Advocaten Immigration Lawyers (Everaert.nl) 

In a joint opinion column in Het Parool, Everaert Advocaten lawyers Danielle Snaathorst, Leonie Haenen, and Elles Besselsen argued that extending the naturalisation period would “delay, not deepen, integration,” observing that individuals “who already participate, work, pay taxes and raise children in the Netherlands” are being discouraged from taking the final step of citizenship. They described the proposal as “symbolic politics that undermines inclusion rather than promoting it.” (Parool – Als vreemdelingen pas na tien jaar mogen naturaliseren, vertraagt dat alleen maar hun integratie) 

The Doctrine of Contributive Belonging and the Dutch Reform 

The proposed Dutch nationality reform extends the residence requirement for naturalisation from five to ten years across all applicant categories — including spouses of Dutch nationals and former Dutch citizens. This blanket approach applies a uniform logic of “earning” citizenship through prolonged residence, overlooking the fact that some categories already possess a legitimate nexus to the Netherlands, grounded not in contribution, but in personal status or origin. 

In cases such as marriage to a Dutch citizen or restoration of citizenship to former nationals, the connection to the State pre-exists the naturalisation process. These individuals are linked to Dutch society by family ties or birthright, not by the type of social, economic, or civic participation that the Doctrine of Contributive Belonging seeks to measure. Applying the same extended residence test to them represents an overreach of the doctrine, imposing a contributive threshold where belonging is already established by law and by human relationship. 

By contrast, the doctrine finds its most appropriate and compelling application in cases where applicants begin without any organic link to the State. For these candidates, citizenship may legitimately be conditioned on demonstrable integration and participation, employment, entrepreneurship, language proficiency, community service, or other forms of reciprocal contribution that signal a durable bond with Dutch society. 

Understood properly, the Doctrine of Contributive Belonging differentiates between earning belonging and recognising existing attachment. It supports calibrated pathways that measure contribution only where it is relevant, for new entrants, while respecting family-based and restoration routes grounded in personal or historical connection.

As articulated by Jean-Philippe Chetcuti in Contributive Belonging: A New Principle for European Citizenship and Residency, the doctrine proposes that citizenship and long-term residence should rest “not only on formal criteria but on demonstrable integration and contributions – economic, social, cultural, or civic – that create reciprocal value for the host State.” 

Applying this interpretive lens to the Dutch reform exposes a structural flaw: the law’s indiscriminate use of time as a proxy for belonging. A principled approach, consistent with the doctrine, would tailor conditions to the nature of each nexus — contribution for those building ties from abroad, and recognition for those whose connection arises from marriage, ancestry, or prior nationality. 

Strategic Implications 

If passed, the law would represent a symbolic tightening rather than a substantive improvement of the Dutch nationality framework. 

  • It risks slowing integration, contrary to the stated policy objective.
  • It widens the gap between Dutch law and the EU integration acquis, which favours inclusion and reciprocal belonging. 
  • It delays long-awaited dual citizenship reform, isolating the Netherlands from mainstream European nationality policy. 

Key Takeaways 

  • The reform prioritises duration over integration and contribution.
  • It contradicts both the Contributive Belonging doctrine and EU integration goals.
  • The Netherlands risks reversing decades of progressive citizenship policy. 
  • A more forward-looking approach would measure belonging through participation and contribution, not time alone.