Talk:Dutch nationality law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth in the Netherlands[edit]

There is no evidence that birth in the Netherlands to non-Dutch parents confers Dutch citizenship. For example, this page from the Netherlands Embassy in New Zealand. Unless an official reference is forthcoming I will revert this information in a few days. JAJ 04:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JAJ#Dutch_nationality_law
The Dutch law has a kind of double ius soli . See article 3, member 3 of the law:
Nederlander is het kind van een vader of moeder die ten tijde van de geboorte van het kind zijn of haar hoofdverblijf heeft in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen of Aruba en die zelf geboren is als kind van een vader of moeder die ten tijde van zijn of haar geboorte in een van die landen hoofdverblijf had, mits het kind ten tijde van zijn geboorte zijn hoofdverblijf heeft in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen of Aruba.
This translates into:
Dutch citizen is the child of a father or mother who at the time of the birth of the child has his or her main residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch Antilles or Aruba and who (him/her)self was born as a child of a father or mother who, at the time of his or her birth, had main residence in one of these countries, providing that the child, at the time of his or her birth, had main residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch Antilles or Aruba.
The source quoted above - an embassy - is not complete on all details of the law. The text of the law is generally the only reliable source for information on Dutch law, and one should always doubt summaries. The full text of the law is available at http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0252_Rijkswet_op_het_Nederlanderschap_RWN.htm or at the official government site http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=Rijkswet%20op%20het%20Nederlanderschap . See also this less reliable source http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=6&story_id=128 .
I don't see any important difference, but one should notice that the law gives the Dutch nationality as a birthright to children with a main residence in the Kingdom, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE BORN. This law does not look where one is born, but where one (and one's parent) were "mainly" living at the moment when they were born. If a third nationality mother born while living in a house in the Kingdom and still living in the Kindom, would be giving birth during a (short) visit to the USA, the child would be given both the Dutch and the US nationality based on ius soli, one on the soil of birth, the other on the soil the baby could call home.

( ThW5 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special regulations[edit]

Is it not possible that the Dutch nationality is granted by a royal decree as in the the case of Maxima? Daimanta 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch nationality is always granted (in respect to option and naturalization procedures) by the decision of the king (or: queen). tgeorgescu

In respect of the Optieprocedure, its left up to the local mayor.. (Dutchdavey) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.79.224.250 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another exemption[edit]

I want to make the following edit on the Dutch_nationality_law page: tgeorgescu

  • where renunciation of the applicant's existing nationality would cost too much, in respect to his/her income. This must be demonstrated with proof of income and proof of consulary fees to be paid in case of renunciation, specific for his/her own case or with general specifications of such consulary fees for every citizen of the country in which he/she is a national of. Note: As a rule of thumb, if that sum of money is larger than your income for two months, then you have a right to keep your nationality of origin. Loans do not count as income. tgeorgescu

This is proven if you consult http://wetten.overheid.nl , then search for Nederlanderschap, then choose Regeling verkrijging en verlies Nederlanderschap, and read (in Dutch language) Chapter II, Section III, Article 6, paragraph 1.d. tgeorgescu

Paragraph 2 of the same article says that if one shows objective reasons (whatever the Dutch authorities are able, if requested, to recognize as objective reasons, e.g. taking care of one's sick parents in country of origin or whatever), then he/she is exempt from the obligation to rennounce origin nationality. tgeorgescu

Such requests have to be made before signing the declaration that you renounce your nationality of origin, and then the clerk overwrites with black the text "I agree to renounce..." and writes with black on the formulary "I don't agree with renouncing to my nationality of origin, as provided by law as exception ............., and my reasons are ................" tgeorgescu

Now you get a feeling like in that film with Asterix and Obelix, wherein they fight the Roman bureaucracy with inventing a fictive directive. Only, the Dutch laws are for real, that's the difference. Check it for yourself. tgeorgescu

In my view erroneous comment[edit]

Further, I find erroneous the following comment: tgeorgescu

"Local expat bulletin boards, though, say that the immigration ministry has largely undermined these exceptions, either by imposing barriers so high that no one reaches them, or by using secondary obstacles to prevent would-be applicants from getting Dutch nationality." tgeorgescu

Even if it is true that immigration/naturalization rules have become harsher, my reasons are:

First, it is the duty of every individual who requests naturalization to fully inform himself/herself of the laws in application. The site http://ind.nl is full with information in this respect, and you have to know level 4 Dutch (NT2-2, not as high level as one might think) in order to understand the nuances of that literature. tgeorgescu

Second, if you're in doubt about applicable laws, do consult a lawyer. Third, if you cannot afford it, do consult the site http://wetten.overheid.nl and read everything you find when searching for Nederlanderschap. tgeorgescu

Fourth, consult the site of the Dutch Ministry of Foregin Affairs, it has info in English language about Dutch nationality. The link is http://www.minbuza.nl/en/welcome/DutchCitizens,dutch_nationality tgeorgescu

If you want the help of the state (or community) in this respect, the solution is very simple: make an appointment at city (community) hall with the naturalization official and ask him/her all the questions you may want to ask before requesting naturalization. You may also call (by phone) the department of Civil Affairs of your community (city hall). All these clerks are paid from taxpayers' money to answer your questions, and you simply ask them to do their job for which they are paid. tgeorgescu

But, hey, that's not all: the IND has a phone line, 10 eurocent per minute, excluding mobile costs, the number is 0900-1234561 (you may only call this number from the Netherlands, as far as I know). Ask them every question you might think of, they are paid to answer your questions. In the Netherlands, everybody has the right to politely put questions like "What if I would to this?" or "When it is the best moment to fill in my request?" Your imagination is the limit in asking such questions. Taxpayers pay for such services, it is up to you to use them. Besides, you don't need to talk Dutch, you may also talk English, German, French, Spanish, they have clerks who talk such languages (eventually even Arabic or Turkish). The state pays translators for whatever language which can be called by phone by doctors or lawyers or government services just to translate it for you. tgeorgescu

I have to say that I have edited the main article to reflect the idea that such erroneous comment truly appears on ethnic internet forums for Dutch inhabitants and showing due reasons why such viewpoint is erroneous. I am satisfied with the article as it is now, and I suggest one of the labels of "controversial viewpoint" (or "no neutrality") be removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is cohabitation an exemption from renouncing original citizenship?[edit]

i would like more information about "Exemptions to the requirement to renounce foreign citizenship" if i cohabit with a dutch citizen, can i get to keep my nationality? or is marriage/registered partnership a must?

Properly reading Kingdom's Law on Dutch Nationality, Art.1 paragraph 2 (points a and b) and Art. 9 paragraph 3 point d, it follows that: tgeorgescu

(i) in respect to this law, registered partnership (or even three-years long cohabitation with a Dutch partner, for other laws grant you retroactively partnership status after living together, as in unregistered partenerial cohabitation, with an unmarried Dutch person for more than three years -- this boils down to: after three years living together you have same rights as a registered partner) counts as marriage, with the exception of provision of Article 15A, point a. This is an article that only matters for citizens of countries which have signed, ratified the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality (Strasbourg, 6.V.1963), never denounced it and made no reservations about art. 1 of the Convention, which says that by getting citizenship of a similar party to this treaty, the origin nationality is automatically lost. The parties to this agreement (which made no such reservations) are: Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Norway (according to http://www.minbuza.nl/en/welcome/DutchCitizens,dutch_nationality/i_am_a_dutch_citizen_and_would_like_to_acquire_anothe.html ). So, if you are no citizen of these countries, you do not need to worry about art. 15A, point a. tgeorgescu

(ii) marriage with a Dutch national entitles you with the right to keep your nationality of origin, see Art. 9, paragraph 3, point d of the same law. tgeorgescu

(iii) since registered partnership or more than three years cohabitation with a Dutch national gives you in respect to this law the same rights as marriage (for, in the meaning of this law "marriage" also means partnership, see Art. 1, paragraph 2, points a and b, with the exception mentioned above for Art. 15A, point a), partnership entitles you to keep your origin nationality except if you're Austrian, Belgian, Danish, Luxembourgese, or Norwegian subject. tgeorgescu

(iv) this boils down to: if you count as partner of a Dutch national, and if you're not Austrian, Belgian, Danish, Luxembourgese or Norwegian, you have the legal right to keep your origin nationality. You loose this legal right if you sign an agreement that you are committed to renounce your origin nationality, but nobody in the Netherlands may force you to sign such an agreement. It is your own free decision and you have to tell the clerk in advance that you are entitled by law to be exempt from the provisions of the general rule of renouncing your origin nationality (this general rule holds if and only if that could reasonably be done by you, and only if you have no legal right to be exempt from this rule). tgeorgescu

See also (for speakers of Dutch language): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationaliteit

I have to admit here an error: in the meaning of Art. 1.2.b. of the Dutch nationality law (RWN), registered partnership is the same thing as marriage, in so far as the RWN is concerned. I searched for a Dutch proviso which would grant the same rights as marriage after three years of unregistered parnternship and I found no reference to such presumed fact. What is true in this respect is explained in the leaflet on http://ind.nl/nl/Images/Ned_worden_0706_tcm5-574.pdf , page 11, namely that after three years of living in the Netherlands under the same roof with a partner, in a relationship of unregistered partnership, one still has the right of requesting naturalisation. Unfortunately, this does not entitle him/her to the exception from renouncing one's original nationality from art. 9.3.d. of RWN. But, in this respect there is a simple trick to be done: register your relationship with your partner before you demand naturalization, and you are still entitled by RWN art. 9.3.d. juncto art. 1.2.b. to be exempted from the proviso of renouncing your nationality of origin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against women[edit]

I would like to comment on: "Laywers are trying to persuade the Dutch government that Art. 27 RWN discriminates against women and should therefore be revoked." Tgeorgescu 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discriminative article was revoked. What the lawyers ask is that the Dutch state should reconsider the past consequences (that is, before 1985) of such article. This is no wonder, since no Dutch married woman had legal responsibility (the husband decided in her name in every commercial and legal activity) till 1956. The Netherlands is one of the most conservative European countries in respect to work participation of women. It seems that Dutch women do not buy the argument that working double shifts would be a form of emancipation. It is an unwritten norm that a Dutch woman should choose between raising her children at home or making a professional career. A Dutch minister did not marry because she considered that "It is not proper for a stateswoman to become married". That was in the 60's or 70's. Tgeorgescu 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, the Dutch women do not (statistically seen) buy the argument that working double shifts would be a form of emancipation. This is empirically proven by a research done jointly by the Dutch feminist magazine Opzij and Dutch women's magazine Margriet. See http://www.nrc.nl/media/article790042.ece/Vrouw_is_niet_ambitieus Tgeorgescu 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That minister was Marga Klompé, cf. http://reporter.kro.nl/uitzendingen/2006/1011_marga_klompe/intro.aspx Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short overview of the Dutch laws in respect to nationality/nationalities[edit]

Regeling verkrijging en verlies Nederlanderschap (Regulation about obtaining and loosing Dutch nationality)

Chapter II, Section II, Art. 5, paragraphs 1 - 6 (after option/naturalization, one has to be present at the option/naturalization ceremony in order to become a Dutchman or a Dutchwoman)

Chapter II, Section III, Art. 6, paragraph 1 (letter from a to h) and paragraph 2 (exceptions to the rule of renouncing the nationality of origin, when becoming a Dutchman/Dutchwoman)

Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (The Law of the Kingdom about Dutch nationality)

art. 7 and 8 (requirements for option/naturalization)

art. 9, paragraph 1 (loosing Dutch nationality)

art. 9 paragraph 3 letter d and art. 1 paragraph 2 (being married/registered partnership with a Dutchman/Dutchwoman is equal to being excepted from the rule of renouncing one's nationality of origin; living together with a Dutchman/Dutchwoman for three years also, because it is considered the same thing as registered partnership)

art. 15 paragraph 1 letter a (you lose your Dutch nationality if you accept by your own choice another nationality); letter c (for people with multiple nationality, living ten years outside Dutch territories is equal to loosing the Dutch nationality; there are some exceptions to it and it can be prevented if you renew your Dutch passport timely); letter d (the cancellation of the naturalization decision)

art. 15 paragraph 2, letters a, b and c (exceptions from losing the Dutch nationality when getting another nationality through your own choice; it is of application since 1 April 2003)

art. 15A (exceptions for the exceptions mentioned in art. 15)

art. 16 (comparable to art. 15, it applies to underage persons)

art 16A (comparable to art. 15A, it applies to underage persons)

Besluit verkrijging en verlies Nederlanderschap (Decision about getting and losing Dutch nationality)

art. 60a and art. 60b (after option/naturalization, one becomes a Dutchman/Dutchwoman through participating in the option/naturalization ceremony; there are some exceptions to this proviso; it works retroactively since His Majesty the King/Queen signed the option/naturalization decision).

See:

http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=Regeling%20verkrijging%20en%20verlies%20Nederlanderschap

http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=Rijkswet%20op%20het%20Nederlanderschap

http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=Besluit%20verkrijging%20en%20verlies%20Nederlanderschap

Disclaimer: This is simply my own opinion. It does not constitute legal advice! In doubt, check with your Dutch consulate/embassy or hire a Dutch lawyer. Tgeorgescu 11:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen or subject?[edit]

In kingdoms, people are not called "citizens", but they are called "subjects", because they are subjected to the king/queen. Tgeorgescu 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu, it would be nice if you'd respond to my comments before you revert my edits. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mea culpa. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Fundamental Law, art. 2, paragraph 1 says: "The law decides who is Dutch". So, it contains neither the word subject nor the word citizen. See http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=GRONDWET Tgeorgescu 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the law on nationality is called "The Law of the Kingdom on Dutchness". At art. 1, paragraph 1, letter f. of this law, it is mentioned the word subject (Dutch: onderdaan). Tgeorgescu 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, proper translations would be: being a Dutch/Dutchperson/Dutchman/Dutchwoman, Dutchness (which is just too weird for English), nationality, but not citizenship. E.g., I am a subject of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and a citizen (Dutch: burger) of the community (Dutch: gemeente) Zwolle. I am also a citizen of Romania. (The funny thing is that I was a citizen of Zwolle five or six years before becoming a Dutch subject.) Tgeorgescu 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Saying someone is Dutch to mean s/he is a Dutch citizen is too strange for English. I think we should go for citizen as it's the most common legal term and come people think the term 'national' means ethnicity. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I corrected "citizen" to "subject". The word "onderdaan" means "subject". Kingdoms do not have citizens, they have subjects. The word "citizen" applies to nationals of non-kingdoms. In kingdoms, nationals are called subjects because they are subjected to the king. Dutch communes (municipalities) have citizens, meaning that they are inhabitants of such communes. In my case, I was a citizen of Zwolle, but no Dutch subject; after my naturalization, I am both a citizen of Zwolle and a Dutch subject. So the word subject expresses my quality of being a national of the Dutch state, while the word citizen simply means I am an inhabitant of the commune Zwolle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the United Kingdom people have been called citizens for quite a while now (although there are some people who are still called British subjects owing to a certain amount of legal leftovers.) I think we can safely say the use of subjects meaning nationals is archaic. Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it about the UK. But the Dutch laws call Dutch subjects "onderdanen". Even when speaking of either citizens or subjects of other countries, like the countries of the European Union, they are globally called "onderdanen". See for example Wet inburgering, art. 5.2.a., which calls both citizens and subjects of the EU/EER states and Switzerland by the word "onderdanen". The forms available at http://ind.nl/NL/algemeen/brochures/downloaden/index.asp?lang=nl&subhome=tcm:5-266-4&title=Verblijfwijzer%20Subhome&origin=%2FNL%2Fverblijfwijzer%2Findex.asp%3F were updated in 2008 and they speak now of citizens instead of subjects. I understand that people outside the Netherlands consider the word "subject" archaic and it could be for them a source of confusions. But to call them citizens is incorrect, because the Dutch laws call them subjects, in so far their nationality (citizenship) is concerned. In so far they are called "burgers", it means citi-zens, i.e. denizens of towns and cities. In Dutch, "burger" also means "civilian", as opposed to someone serving in an army. My point is that in so far we call Dutch nationals "citizens", this is a source of confusion, seen what the Dutch laws say about subjects as being different from citizens. E.g., to my great amazement I read on a Romanian forum a statement saying that someone became a Dutch citizen by getting registered as a citizen of a town. In fact, being registered as a citizen of a town does not make one a Dutch subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, "subject" is a word which leads to confusion outside the Netherlands, and "citizen" is a word which leads to confusion inside the Netherlands. Since we may presume that most readers of the discussed article are either former/actual inhabitants of the Netherlands or they aim to become so, we could reduce their confusion by using "subject" instead of "citizen", favoring thus what we may presume to be the majority of the readers. "Subject" may be an archaism outside the Netherlands, but I can assure you it is quite up to date in the Netherlands. In fact, using the word citizen in discussing the Dutch nationality with the Dutch institutions is a thing which one should avoid, because such institutions cannot easily be presuaded to change their minds about using other words instead of "subject". It is though correct to say that I am a Romanian citizen, even if the law article quoted above says that I count as a subject of another European country, which is a republic. Since re-public comes from "rex" (king) + "publikon" (people arround the...), meaning that the state is organized by the gathering of the people arround their king, we may say it is formally not so weird that I am refered by the Dutch laws as being a Romanian subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... well if "citizen" is never used in the Netherlands I'm prepared to stick with "subject". If we're not using "citizen" we should also avoid the cognate "citizenship" and use "nationality" instead. However I can't agree with you on the most likely readers point though. I don't know who's most likely to read this article but I think it ought to be written in a more removed style: ie someone who has never been to Holland but is interested to find out about the it. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a bit more complicated, after the abolition of slavery "subject" and "citizen" meant basically the same thing in the European and American territory of the Kingdom, but there were lots of Asian Dutch nationals who were Dutch subjects not citizens, so the words did not include the same people. Mind you, as a result of this colonial history there are minorities who can feel insulted by this terminology. The Dutch word for citizen is used all the time, but it means "civilian" too and is perceived as having little "of this nationality" meaning. And indeed ,one can be a voting citizen on the municipal level, without having the Dutch nationality. The Republic is a RES PUBLICA, a public entity, and has nothing to do with kings. ThW5 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a good word in Dutch for "citizen" as it concerns this topic, "Staatsburger" (= "State Citizen", but using that with translation would cause confusion with something on the level of being a Texan citizen rather than that of being a US/citizen.ThW5 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staatsburger means either subject or citizen of a certain country, it is a conflation of these two concepts. You may say that staatsburger means a national of certain state (national as in nationality law). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, on my English CV I have stated "Subject of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; citizen of the commune Zwolle. Citizen of Romania." Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, onderdanen (of a King, not of a Kingdom) is something I hear mainly in fairy tales and old stories. In everyday use nationaliteit is most used (or, but worse: the possession of a nationality is equated with having a passport of a country). But what you write on your EN-CV is up to you of course ;-). L.tak (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convention on multiple nationality[edit]

The text of the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality (Strasbourg, May 6, 1963) is on: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/043.htm Tgeorgescu 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Para moved here from Dual citizenship section[edit]

I have moved the following here:

In all cases the other country must allow dual citizenship in that particular situation. Thus, Dutch citizens cannot have citizenship of Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see Double nationalité), Japan or South Korea, since none of those countries allows its nationals to acquire multiple citizenship. Dutch nationals also cannot have Belgian citizenship, since that country's nationality law does not allow Belgian nationals to hold Dutch citizenship.

Dutch law cannot determine who may or may not hold citizenship in another country. The law of the particular other country concerned determines that. For example, the constitution of Haiti says, in part:

ARTICLE 11: Any person born of a Haitian father or Haitian mother who are themselves native-born Haitians and have never renounced their nationality possesses Haitian nationality at the time of birth.
ARTICLE 12: Haitian nationality may be acquired by naturalization.
ARTICLE 12 - 1: After five years of continuous residence in the territory of the Republic, any foreigner may obtain Haitian nationality by naturalization, in conformity with the regulations established by law.

From this, it appears possible for a Dutch national to obtain Haitian citizenship, acquire a Haitian passport, and travel as a Haitian. What the Dutch government might think about the matter would have no impact on that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, a country decides alone who are its citizens, because this is considered an internal affair of that specific country (since it is a sovereign state). Jessurun d'Oliveira, a former professor of immigration law, explained it on http://www.wereldomroep.nl/actua/nl/nederlandsepolitiek/act20070306_nationaliteit . The idea is that if a Dutch subject gets by his/her own free decision a foreign nationality (i.e. except not being asked for his/her aware consent, as in the cases of children automatically born with dual nationality, who cannot answer such questions because they cannot talk, and neither they have a say in this, nor their parents or legal representatives) and he/she does not fulfill the exceptions for keeping his/her Dutch nationality, then he/she has automatically lost the Dutch nationality in the moment his/her request to become a foreign national was granted. So, Haiti decides who are Haitian citizens, the Netherlands decides who are Dutch subjects. To suggest otherwise would mean that one state decides in the internal affairs of another state, which is generally taboo in international law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To put it briefly, if a Dutch subject gets the Haitian nationality, he/she has lost the Dutch nationality (as a general rule). There are some exceptions from this general rule. Children born with multiple nationality cannot loose the Dutch nationality at their birth, since it is not their free choice to get another nationality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions[edit]

  • The article refers to residency requirements vis-à-vis citizenship by birth. I take it this must mean legal residency for some given period, as opposed to the parents just living in a place that the article currently implies? Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents are that "residence" means therein legal residence, i.e. residence with a valid title of stay, like a visum or residence permit. Assuming otherwise would mean that people could have residence in the Netherlands without having the right to reside in the Netherlands -- sometimes it happens, but it remains outside the rule of law, i.e. they reside illegally, which means that they don't have the right to be there. As far as I know from reading about the US citizenship, a child born on US soil is a US citizen if at least one of his/her parents had legal residence in the US at the time of his/her birth. In US applies jus soli, so we may think that something similar applies to the only trace of jus soli in the Netherlands. If we understand by residence the address used most by somebody to live somewhere, then we could think of a rule of thumb, like during a period of 12 months, more than 6 months were spent by having de facto residence in the Netherlands. So, it is up to lawyers to split hairs about it, while the most probable explanation would be my two cents mentioned above. Of course, it is up to the Dutch courts to establish what the law precisely means by it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that there's no clearer definition on what residence means. We should be clear that legal residence is required as it ambiguous otherwise. Btw, there's no parental residence requirement in the US and even the children of illegal immigrants or tourists are US citizens.Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Art 1.1.h. of the RWN, it writes "h. hoofdverblijf: de plaats waar een persoon zijn feitelijke woonstede heeft." I.e. "residence: the place where a person has his de facto home". So, it could be that it is about the de facto residence. Well, unless the functionaries would object that unlawful residence is no residence at all. So, it would be interesting to research how the courts considered this problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet points in the section 'Birth in the Netherlands' repeat the same condition: residence. Is it important that the residence of the parent and the place of birth of the child is the same. What about residence in Aruba and birth in the Netherlands? Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Art 3.3 of the RWN says:
"A Dutch subject is the child of a father or mother who at the time of the birth of that child has his/her residence in the Netherlands, Dutch Antilles or Aruba, and himself/herself is born as a child of a father or mother that at the time of his/her birth had his/her residence in one of these countries, with the condition that the child at the time of his birth had his residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch Antilles or Aruba."
So, I read it that residence in Aruba and birth in the Netherlands is ok, as long as ((father or mother) and (grandma or grandpa)) had residence in one of these three countries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does an applicant for Dutch citizenship by option become a citizen automatically if they comply with the criteria or is some government discretion involved? Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An option request has to be submitted at the IND (via the municipality). The applicant has to fulfill the conditions for the option procedure, e.g., like staying a certain period in the Netherlands/Dutch territories or whatever conditions are stipulated by law for candidates to option. There are some folders with information about such procedures, describing those conditions, available at http://ind.nl/nl/Images/Ned_worden_0712_tcm5-574.pdf and http://ind.nl/nl/Images/bro_buitenland_tcm5-1844.pdf Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I think it's safe to translate the option procedure as being one of simplified naturalisation. I know this isn't what the Dutch government don't call it that in English, but nonetheless option procedure sounds a bit odd and isn't very informative. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About non-neutrality labels[edit]

I have expressed above the view that one non-neutrality label is should no longer be there, since the dispute happened long ago, and since then the main article has been edited in order to do justice to both viewpoints. I want to suggest here the removal of the second non-neutrality label. The reasons are: the discussion page does not make clear what the dispute is about. Then, the article as it is now does justice to both viewpoints: it reflects the position of the Balkenende government, which is nothing else than an expression of how the Dutch demos feels about such issues (mainly, an attenuated form of Fortuyn's motto "full means full"). It also reflects the position of the critics of this position, position which as far as I know has not been challenged on this discussion page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said, "some of this section appears to be biased against Dutch government" in my edit summary, but to be honest it's worse than that. It reads like a university student's essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Every time the section refers to the government's opinion its followed but a "but...". It then quotes the opinions of two academics as if they were facts. Anyway how come such a philosophical discourse belongs to an article on law, I don't know! Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the Dutch research-government entanglement, as the right-wing people prefer to call mainstream social theory about integration, such views count as facts, i.e. there is a high degree of agreement thereupon from the people who are supposed to know such issues best. Even if Schinkel's viewpoint sounds utterly radical, in fact it is very banal and the only wonder about it is that people who share Schinkel's assumptions (like social constructionism) manage to doubt his conclusions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia is about the facts, not about our own emotions about facts or choices in respect to changing these facts. As such, Wikipedia articles fulfill their purpose as long as they remain an expression of facts, i.e. as long as they are accurate. In this meaning, the fact that a mention of "secondary obstacles" appears on immigrants' forums is a fact, taken in itself. This does not make the viewpoint true, but it is a fact that such viewpoint gets expressed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a discussion forum as a reference is against policy. The article even admits that the source is unverifiable and other than saying that continues to treat the statement as true and defends the immigration service for applying the harsh rules. Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In respect to mentioning discussion forums: ok, it is a fault. But, it is not my own fault. The statement is accurate in so far discussion forums are a way of researching the attitudes of the immigrants. Perhaps it does not fulfill Wikipedia standards and then it should be removed from the article. Now, let me rephrase it: taken litterally, that statement is untrue, because IND is not a ministry (it is not department of the state, but a service which functions for such a department). But it has some truth in it, since most reporters on Dutch political issues agree that rules for immigration and naturalization have become (objectively) harsher (it is common knowledge, needs little proof, and it is not something debatable or uncertain). But, this harshness is not the fault of the IND, it is the decision of the Parliament members elected by the Dutch voters. IND functionaries simply have to make true what the Parliament decided about drawing the line somewhere between welcome and unwelcome immigrants, and this is why they are seen as harsh. It does not mean that they would be "bad people"; their only job is to apply the law (and keep private their feelings in such matters). Speaking of "secondary obstacles", this could mean everything and nothing at the same time. My empathic feeling about that is that the writer wanted to say by these words something like "lack of accurate information + lack of hope + lack of daring (because fearing rejection or non-approval of the procedure) + endless bureaucratic procedures (from the Netherlands and from the home country)". In this respect, such mention of the "secondary obstacles" constructs kind of conspiracy theory about the hidden purposes of the Dutch government, which would presumably hide from the public valuable information which the public (the immigrants) could eventually use in order to keep their nationality of origin. I think I have removed such implications from the article, because given the amount of information made available by the Dutch government and local authorities, it was simply ridiculous. The sources for getting such information are mentioned upon this very discussion page. In short, immigration rules becoming harsher=fact. Scientific theories about integration are widely agreed upon in the academic world, in so far that dissenters are seen as either mavericks or intrinsically suspect people. Widely agreed scientific theory=something like (close to) fact (the distinction between facts and theories is rather difficult, and it depends upon the degree of consensus in a certain respect, as far as my VU teacher, dr. Dvora Yanow can be trusted to render scientific consensus in such matters). We cannot simply discuss laws, forgetting to discuss their political and social significance. E.g., the ban on censuses in the Netherlands is due to the remembrance that population records (files) held by the Dutch authorities before WW2 were very helpful for Nazis, in order to know who is a Jew and where he/she lived, in order to send him/her to the concentration camp. So, such legal measures are not taken in a social void, by a blonde beast beyond responsibility and accountability. Basically, social scientific consensus (in the Netherlands academe) debunks Balkenende's and Verdonk's rhetoric as groundless and meaningless agitation. This does not mean that Balkenende is no longer in charge; it only means that the rank-and-file Dutch social scientist believes that such nationalistic discourse is a bunch of craps, a sheer exercise in futility. The Balkenende government still has the responsibility to govern this country, wherein the public opinion, which had a huge sympathy for the immigrants, came to see them during the recent years as the source of most troubles in this country. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on nationality law - one of a series - and not on society or the existence of nations so I'm not sure if all the stuff is really relevant here. Wikipedia has article on multiple nationality and integration were these points might find a more appropriate home.
I imagine that anyone seeking naturalisation - something you have personal experience of - will at times feel that the odds are heavily stacked against them by an anonymous bureaucracy. Primary rules will normally be supplemented by secondary rules and both of these sets of rules will normally be both impenetrable and complicated to the uninitiated. Posts to online forums, complaining about the application of the rules, doesn't surprise me. But we unless we have hard evidence to say so, we shouldn't even begin to talk about any suspected bureaucratic rule making.
Try not to confuse science and social science. They're not really the same thing.
We can leave in that the new rules are making it more difficult to become a naturalised Dutch subject. But we have to be careful on the words we use. Saying either that the rules are harsh (essentially meaning unfair) or that the rules have been tightened up (meaning that they were previously lax) implies a point of view. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the article on integration, I agree that such information would be more appropriate there. However, the reader should get an insight that the changing of Dutch nationality law is a serious problem in the present Dutch society, i.e. it is a fiercely debated issue. So, the law itself is hot, it became debatable and we may surely say that present Dutch nationality law is enforced uniformly, but it is considered as illegitimate by a large part of the Dutch society. E.g. the Union of Dutch Communes (or: towns) dissented from the application of the nationality law, in respect to reporting the illegal aliens for deportation. It is about the state of law fighting against the state of law. Montesquieu would love it. I suppose this gives exceptional insights into what law is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the rules complicated to the uninitiated: I agree with you, because I now have insight in how these rules work. But, for a person without such insight, they appear as arbitrary and even mean (i.e. adopted in bad faith). So, the feelings of the immigrants are easily understood: the rules are so complicated that they cannot know in advance what result they could expect, and when they get in difficulties, they feel harmed unjustly. I was not suggesting a conspiracy; on the contrary I was arguing that is no conspiracy, and it is simply about drawing the line somewhere. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I received a Bachelor of science in sociology, I was assured that sociology is a science, through applying the empirical-analytical model: get empirical data in order to test theories. Natural science (physics) work the same way, I suppose. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the word "harsh", I disagree. According to Merriam Webster it means "2 a: causing a disagreeable or painful sensory reaction : irritating b: physically discomforting : painful 3: unduly exacting : severe". It does not mean "unjust", it means "severe" and "discomforting". I think I have proven here why Dutch nationality law is perceived as harsh, i.e. it is "objectively" harsh. 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm aware that this is rather "after the fact" but I would like to agree strongly with the criticisms on this section. Quoting Margaret Thatcher's theories on society seems to me particularly laughable (a partisan viewpoint in itself of course), but there are also some real problems with the level of English here too. Typical Dutch translation errors like "instance" as the translation of "instantie" (should be agency, or government agency whichever is the case, in this context) and "to be busy with" for "zich mee bezig te houden". This could be addressed. I don't want to do it now. :) Seriously though I have been annihilated for smaller failings than this section possesses in spades.princeofdelft 07/11/08

Criticisms are to the point, since many people feel that way about immigration procedures. They are not ok in so far one (the Parliament) has to draw the line somewhere, and there will always be some unfortunate persons who "fall out of the boat", or "are between the wall and the ship", as the Dutch say. I corrected the grammar mistakes you were pointing to. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, dr. Schinkel is a liberal, i.e. leftist and progressive. He is no conservative-libertarian like Thatcher. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Well, pondering about the issue of non-neutrality, I suggest the following compromise: transform the questionable viewpoints into footnotes. This way their share in the article will be reduced, without erasing such information from the article. I will apply such modifications to the article and if this is not the consensus, then revert my modifications. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands Nationality Act[edit]

There is no Netherlands Nationality Act, but the Royal Law Concerning Being Dutch, or the Royal Law Upon Being Dutch. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Law Concerning Being Dutch" is incorrect English. Het "Rijk" in the Dutch context is "Kingdom" or "Nation." The correct English translation would thus be "Kingdom Law" or even better "Kingdom Act" since an Act is a rather formal, important legislative text that sets a precedent. A Rijkswet is applicable to the entire Kingdom of the Netherlands and its territories. A "wet" is only valid in the Netherlands but not necessarily in Curacao, Aruba or the islands. "Concerning Being Dutch" is incorrect. Nederlanderschap is a synthesis of various elements, such as Dutch nationality/citizenship, the state of being Dutch, etc. The closest, most accurate translation in this case would be "on Netherlands nationality" since "nationality" and "being Dutch" are two (2) separate things. Kingdom Act(or even "regarding") the Netherlands nationality is the most accurate English translation.212.147.13.121 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last comments mostly: it's IMO "Kingdom act on/regarding Dutch Citizenship". In English, the legal meaning of "nationaliteit" is best translated "citizenship", while nationality is a much more broader term (relating to the "being Dutch"). Citizenship and place of residence are fully separated things in English... L.tak (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch nationality by descent and Dutch nationality by option[edit]

The current paragraph on the Dutch nationality law should be broken into two (2) separate sections.

The subparagraph about the Latente Nederlanders should not be under the "By Descent" paragraph, but moved under the "Option" paragraph, since the new provision (i) for Latente Nederlanders is not formally Dutch nationality "by descent" -- otherwise that possibility would be under Article 3 and not under Article 6 of the RWN.

I merely write this in that it is confusing to the reader and also legally incorrect. There is no reason for the Latente Nederlander option to be the largest topic under the "By Descent" section. It belongs under the Option section. The way you have listed all the different situations for receiving Dutch nationality via option is good. That is why the Latente Nederlander paragraphs should go there and not stay where they are presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.13.121 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, legally incorrect is not the only determining factor. Factually those people are Dutch by decent; it is "just" implemented by law in the option procedure for legal reasons. Having said that, I can imagine it also under "Option" and have no objections. Let's wait a week or so and see how (/if) others think about it.... L.tak (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dutch nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch nationality law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition after 2009[edit]

In 2009 dutch nationality law changed. Children acknowledged after birth but before the age of seven will get Dutch nationality upon acknowledgement 81.59.46.44 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_nationality_law&oldid=1206969982"